Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Hospital Finance

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how the capital funds made available to the Welsh Hospital Board have been allocated as between the 13 counties of Wales over the past five years.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The Welsh Hospital Board does not allocate capital funds on a county basis, and I regret that details of capital expenditure by individual counties in Wales in the past five years are not readily available.

Mr. Hooson: Is it possible for the Minister to give figures which can give some guidance in this matter, since there is a widespread feeling in Mid-Wales that we are suffering disproportionately inasmuch as very little capital expenditure is taking place and we have a lack of suitable hospital services on that account?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman and others believe that to be so. In a speech I made two weekends ago, I sought to dispel any such impression. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a question to raise about particular hospitals, I shall look into the expenditure on them if he will get in touch with me.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that the percentage of total capital expenditure received by the Mid-Wales group of hospitals is no less now than it was three years ago?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I could not with certainty give the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer. I shall write to him about it, but I doubt that it is less.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Could the hon. Gentleman give us figures on the basis of hospital management committee areas? That would be helpful to hon. Members.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I shall look into that.

Industrial Incomes

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net income in real terms of industrial wage earners in Wales in October 1964, October 1970 and October 1972, taking into account changes in the cost of living.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): On the basis of the average gross money wages of full-time adult male manual workers, and allowing for changes in the cost of living, income tax, national insurance contributions and family allowances, the net real income of a married man with a wife and two children under 11 increased by 4·7 per cent. between October 1964 and October 1970. It rose by 9·2 per cent. between October 1970 and October 1972.

Sir A. Meyer: Do not these figures show how groundless are fears that living standards are being reduced by rises in the cost of living?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The figures show that in real terms, after allowing for changes in the cost of living and in other respects, people were better off in October 1972 than in October 1970, and they show also a much greater improvement in real terms in two years under this Government than in six years under the Labour Government.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, whatever figures he produces and whatever he says, people will not believe that those in the pensioner category are better off today than they were two years ago, and does he not realise that the cost of living in recent days has been galloping over all past increases?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are plenty of figures to show that the


purchasing power of the pension is greater than it was when the right hon. Gentleman was partly responsible. The Question refers to industrial wage earners.

Dee Estuary

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received the report of the Water Resources Board; and when he will come to a decision concerning the reclamation of the Dee estuary.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the announcement of a decision on the Dee crossing scheme.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The report of the Water Resources Board is expected in March or April. A decision on the Dee estuary scheme will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Tilney: When my right hon. and learned Friend has looked at the report, will he bear in mind the general lack of amenity in the North West and the immense help which such a multi-purpose scheme could give to both employment and the environment?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that people in my constituency will not want a crossing foisted upon them purely as some sort of conscience money consequent upon the closure of steelmaking at Shotton? Will he understand that our priority there is still the retention of steelmaking at Shotton?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I appreciate that point of view which has been expressed.

Sir A. Meyer: Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), will my right hon. and learned Friend take it that a decision to go ahead with a Dee crossing would transform the economic atmosphere of that part of the country and the spin-off effects might be very great?

Mr. Thomas: That is another point of view which has been equally and forcefully put to me.

Cwmbran New Town

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost per acre of the land at Cwmbran New Town outside the designated area now under consideration to accommodate a planned population of 55,000; how many houses for private sale are anticipated to be placed on this land; and at what average cost per house.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The proposals submitted last year by the development corporation then estimated a cost per acre to the corporation, allowing for a variety of land uses, of about £5,500. The number of privately-built dwellings for sale would be about 900. In accordance with Government policy some of the 1,400 corporation houses to be built might also be purchased in due course. It is impossible at this stage to forecast selling prices.

Mr. Abse: Is not the Minister aware that if those figures are based upon overall costs of land a year ago, in view of the catastrophic rises that have been taking place in land prices they are today hopelessly out of date? Is it not abundantly clear that a more realistic price for the land is £10,000 an acre and that at that price private houses which are likely to be built there will cost between £15,000 and £20,000? Will the Minister explain to Monmouthshire and to me what contribution it will make to dealing with the problems of prospective unemployed steelworkers that there are to be £15,000–£20,000 houses in Cwmbran?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member is introducing a number of separate issues. I accept what he says about the figures I have given him. They are based on last year's cost but they are the latest available. This year's cost would certainly be higher. As for his other points, he raised some of them in his letter to the Secretary of State, and in the answer to that letter I think that my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the matter, particularly with the problem of steelworkers' housing.

Housing Cost Yardsticks

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for special yardstick allowances for housing


schemes in areas of stress are working satisfactorily.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, Sir. Since the introduction of the special allowance no scheme submitted to the Welsh Office for approval has had to be abandoned on cost grounds.

Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Pembrokeshire many local authorities, including Milford Urban District Council and Haverfordwest Rural District Council, are having great difficulty in getting contractors to tender under the present cost yardsticks and that this is gravely holding up the housing programme? Will he undertake to look at the problem again most seriously?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There are certainly problems in this part of West Wales. In the same way as I said I would meet representatives of Swansea with their Members of Parliament, I should be happy to do the same for my hon. Friend.

Mr. John: While no scheme might have been abandoned, surely the Minister concedes that there have been considerable problems for many councils in conforming to the yardsticks. Representations have had to be made to the Welsh Office to secure revision of these yardsticks, notably in the case of Cowbridge Rural District Council, where sheltered accommodation had to be deferred because of the yardsticks. Will the Minister now say that the Welsh Office will in future be more generous in fixing its yardstick and more speedy in revising it where it appears to be unrealistic?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not accept that we have been unrealistic over this matter. The yardstick has been a matter of controversy for some time and it would not he possible for the Government at present to go further than its present position.

Rates (Newport)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the county borough of Newport about rating matters.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have had no such discussions personally but there have been talks between my officials and officers of the authority.

Mr. Hughes: Today an old-age pensioner in Malpas, Newport, approached me about the fact that the rateable value of his flat had been increased from £66 to £176. Is it not time that the Government took steps to relieve the burden on domestic ratepayers, particularly in towns like Newport, where the corporation is seriously contemplating an increase in the rates of no less than 36 per cent.—and that after considerable pruning of the estimates?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are conscious of the problems faced by certain local authorities in that respect. The points which Newport has made to us will be carefully considered. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that Newport will get a substantial increase in rate support grant for 1973–74. The needs element has been enlarged by 24·3 per cent. and the resources element by 164·8 per cent.

European Economic Community

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he now has to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I will attend meetings of the Council of Ministers whenever necessary.

Mr. McBride: Is the Minister aware that there are three reasons why Wales should have a Minister at the EEC Commission? The first is to makes Wales aware of the offsetting of currency changes in EEC States which starts today and how it will affect prices in Wales, the second is to make the British steel industry aware of any unpublished arrangements which will retard or inhibit that industry's growth, and the third reason is so that the Minister can explain in detail to Wales if and when any regional EEC funds will come to the Principality. The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the people but he has never done so.

Mr. Thomas: The practice under the United Kingdom arrangements is for Ministers to attend meetings of the Council when matters central to their responsibilities are under discussion. As I told the hon. Member, I will attend meetings at the Council whenever I consider it necessary.

Sir A. Meyer: Is it not clear that help for hill farmers is on the way from European Community funds, and would it not befit the Opposition more if they were to play their part in the Community institutions, thus ensuring that we secure the maximum benefit from them?

Mr. Thomas: It is right that the Commission has made recommendations that the Council of Ministers will consider.

Mr. John Morris: When?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an exact date but I will find out and let him know.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State intend to attend meetings where regional development and help for the regions is being considered? On what basis do the Government, for example, choose between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland or some other Minister? Is there any agreed plan on this matter?

Mr. Thomas: The question is whether matters being discussed at the time are central to the responsibility of the Ministers involved. The Secretary of State for Scotland sent Ministers to a recent meeting where there were discussions on matters which were important to Scotland but which were not so important to Wales. When other matters important to Wales arise, consideration will be given to a Welsh Minister being present.

Mr. William Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how he now proposes to ensure that the Welsh Office is continuously represented in the councils of the EEC.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Existing arrangements provide full opportunity for my views to be represented in all matters relating to the EEC.

Mr. Edwards: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that a great deal of the work which is to be undertaken at Brussels is of a political nature in relation, for example, to the consideration given to grants for hill areas and in relation to the grants being given to areas suffering from the closure of steelworks? Aid is required at a political level in these considerations. Is it not a fact that we are still dealing with the Commission in Brussels as though it were a foreign

country that has no direct bearing upon the economy of this country?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that many matters of a political nature have to be decided in terms of the European Economic Community. But the Welsh Office certainly has regular contact with Brussels. Three officials from my Department have been in Brussels in the last few weeks and I am fully informed on all matters relating to Wales in particular which are going on in the Community.

Mr. Coleman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he made any representations to the Patronage Secretary regarding the inclusion of his hon. Friends in the delegation to the European Parliament?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Wales is certainly represented on that delegation. My one regret is that there are no representatives from the Labour side of the House.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House which of the Welsh Members of Parliament is a full member of the Con servative Party delegation? I remind him that the European Assembly is a talking shop not much better than the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not know whether by the last part of his question the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should not be meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee or whether he intends to boycott it, in the same way as the Opposition have boycotted the European Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is the representative?"] The representative, who is a Member of Parliament, a Member of the other place, is Lord Brecon.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to tell the House that there is a Welshman at the European Assembly?

Mr. Speaker: The content of such an answer is not a matter of order.

Mr. John: It is not even a matter of accuracy in this case.

Employment

Mr. Elysian Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied


with the number of new jobs likely to be created in Cardiganshire in 1973.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Current developments are encouraging but I am anxious to see more jobs.

Mr. Morgan: Would it not be more correct to say that the Government have no policy which is relevant to attracting light industry to Cardiganshire and that the economy of the whole of Mid-Wales is stagnating? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has the slightest intention of designating advance factories for any part of rural Wales?

Mr. Thomas: The advance factory in Aberystwyth was allocated in December 1972. Extensions have been approved recently to Government-owned factories in Lampeter and Cardigan. Two nursery units were allocated to Lampeter in 1972 and a further two this month. As for the economy stagnating, the most recent figures show an encouraging fall in unemployment in the county.

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he can give of the loss of male jobs in Wales by the end of 1974.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I can make no such estimate nor do I necessarily accept the assumption in the Question. As the latest figures show, unemployment in Wales is falling and vacancies are rising.

Mr. Coleman: The House will be delighted to hear that the unemployment figures are going down. But will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the decrease is a decrease in the unemployment that has occurred since his Government came to office? Can he give a categorical assurance that not one steelworker will be declared redundant until satisfactory alternative employment is available in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I could not give such an assurance. I am glad that he is delighted at the figures showing the recent dramatic drop in unemployment in Wales. The only way to prevent redundancies and create new jobs is to have an expanding economy and sound regional policies. That is what we are now achieving, as the recent unemploy-

ment figures show. The seasonally-adjusted rate for Wales is the lowest for over two years. A decline in unemployment of 5,700 between January and February is remarkable. In fact, it is the highest achieved at this time of the year since the war, and so is the 20 per cent. increase in the number of unfilled vacancies.

Mr. Gower: Hon. Members on both sides who have expressed anxiety about unemployment must have been very impressed that the figures have dropped so dramatically at a time of year when they normally tend to increase. No less impressive has been the increase in notified vacancies in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Wales in particular.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will have seen the review of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which has just been published, which says that if everyone cooperates in combating inflation there is every indication that the trend my hon. Friend mentioned will continue and there will be more investment, more employment and an increase in real incomes.

Mr. Fred Evans: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that when a Government drive unemployment up to peak figures in order to reduce it in two years, it is an Alice in Wonderland argument for them then to argue that they have achieved a phenomenal success?

Mr. Thomas: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not noted that the seasonally-adjusted figures for unemployment in Wales have dropped each month since last September. I hope that he greatly welcomes the trend, which shows signs of continuing if there is cooperation in combating inflation.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will request one of the task forces to examine the employment needs of Wrexham.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The employment needs of Wrexham, as of the rest of Wales, are already the subject of regular review as part of our policies for industrial expansion and regional development.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment position at


Wrexham is likely considerably to worsen if the negotiations between the British Steel Corporation and Guest Keen and Nettlefold break down? Is he aware that BSC has said that it does not intend to make a substantial investment in the works there? Can he therefore ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the BSC conducts the negotiations in good faith on a basis of willing buyer and willing seller?

Mr. Thomas: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is certainly "Yes". I am happy that discussions on the future of the Brymbo Steelworks are continuing between BSC and GKN. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the recent steel debate, which were encouraging.

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of new jobs to be created during 1973 in Glamorgan, and within the area between Newport and Llantwit Major, which is excluded from the Welsh Development Area.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The last available estimate six months ago, covering a four-year period, was that 9,600 jobs are likely to arise in manufacturing industry in Glamorgan, and 770 in the area from Newport to Llantwit Major.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that the problems of the coastal area, which is excluded from the development area, are different from the problems of the valleys and the hinterland? As the manufacturing industry in the coastal area cannot compete easily with the manufacturing industry in the hinterland, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving particular incentives to some of the service industries in the coastal area?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I am aware of the difference which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The whole question of assistance to the area is being looked at.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the best way to answer this Question would be to reveal details of the £900 million

that is to be invested in the steel industry in Wales? Or is that investment, as some of us feel, merely a mirage to soften the blows of the closures and redundancies that will take place in Wales in the near future?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that is right. It was stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry the other day that of the £3,000 million that it is proposed to invest in steel in the United Kingdom over the next 10 years, it is anticipated that Wales will receive approximately one-third.

Cardiff Task Force

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the progress made by the Cardiff task force.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The task force has already met twice and has arranged a full programme of further meetings.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the appreciation of the prompt actions of the task force is in marked contrast to the anger and dismay felt at the failure of the British Steel Corporation to provide the figures and statistics on which the proposals for the closure of East Moors are based? Does he consider that the timetable for closure proposed by BSC is adequate to meet the requirements of the task force to enable it to complete its task?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am certainly aware, because I attended a meeting, of the concern in Cardiff over the proposed timing of the closure. I know that the city council considers seven years to be a minimum. It will certainly be open to the task force to tell me whether it thinks any modification of the timing would be of material assistance to it in its work.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give attention to the reluctance of the British Steel Corporation to provide the Cardiff action committee with the information promised personally by Lord Melchett?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the concern expressed in Cardiff that the figures have not yet been made


available. I know that BSC has said that it is willing to open its books.

Gas Containers (Hirwaun)

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further consideration he has given to the siting of gas containers at Hirwaun, Aberdare, following the representations made to him.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already taken and announced my decision on the planning application by the Gas Corporation, which was the subject of a public local inquiry. I have no powers to reopen the matter or require the Gas Corporation to consider alternative sites.

Mr. Probert: In view of the recent terrible explosion of such a gas container in the United States in which over 50 men lost their lives, does not the Secretary of State think it right and proper to consult the Gas Corporation to see what steps it is taking to ensure that such an accident will not occur in Hirwaun? If not, will he reconsider his decision to approve the site in view of its proximity to a residential area?

Mr. Thomas: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have no power to intervene or reconsider the matter. But I shall bring to the notice of the Gas Corporation the facts that the hon. Gentleman gave about the explosion in the United States.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that during the public inquiry his inspector checked on the safety of a similar plant in Scotland, as did the Neath Rural District Council, in whose area the plant is sited, and received assurances thereon?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. The inspector looked at a similar installation in Scotland, and his recommendation took that into account.

Food Prices

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent in his agricultural responsibility in Wales he undertakes the monitoring of food prices.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Responsibility for food prices lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. John: Does the Minister of State realise that the indifference shown yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on "The World this Weekend" programme gave no reassurance to the people of Wales, who are desperately anxious about the escalation in food prices in the last few months? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in an area in which there is a lower average wage than the rest of the United Kingdom, it is of the first importance that the Welsh Office should monitor food prices? Does he not think that this would be a better activity than holding Fanfare for Europe junketings in St. Donat's Castle.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman needs to bang on about that last point. I can only say that the transfer of functions order which was passed by his Government in 1969 precludes me from giving him an answer on his first point.

Mr. McBride: I direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that he represents Wales in the Cabinet and that if he is not aware of the necessity to monitor food prices, my constituents are, suffering as they do from a 25 per cent. increase in prices since the present incompetent administration took office. As regards the Question about Welsh beef prices, which the Prime Minister refused to answer, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in the Cabinet that this represented a serious matter? My constituents believe, as I do, that Welsh beef should go to Welsh tables at the cheapest possible prices.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not in any way underestimate the importance of food prices. As I said in my original answer, however, and in my reply to the first supplementary question, this does not fall to me to answer.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Has it ever entered the minds of Ministers in the Welsh Office that food prices in Wales are considerably higher on average than they are in the United Kingdom? Are they not aware that there is a plentitude of evidence that prices are even higher in rural areas? Will they reconsider the answers which they have given and set up a system for monitoring these prices?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has made a fairly sweeping statement. I should like to have, sometime, an opportunity to look at it.

Steel Industry

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with British Steel Corporation about further steelmaking capacity in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The situation in Wales was fully considered by the Government when they appraised the British Steel Corporation's 10-year development strategy.

Mr. Kinnock: That makes things even worse. Does not the Secretary of State recall that the purpose of having a Secretary of State for Wales was to safeguard Welsh interests in all matters before all bodies and in all considerations? Will he therefore take into account the fact that under the proposals of the BSC the increase in steelmaking capacity in Wales over the next 10 years will be 7 per cent., in Scotland it will be 40 per cent., in Yorkshire and Humberside 50 per cent. and in the Northern Region 200 per cent.? The Northern Region has no Secretary of State in the Cabinet. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea for us to do without our Secretary of State so that we might get a squarer deal?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's figures, but what he clearly has not appreciated is the enormous investment which it is proposed to make in Wales, which will safeguard in a competitive world the employment of 50,000 people in the steel industry.

Mr. John Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some disbelief in Wales about where the £900 million will go? Can he now tell the House how he satisfied himself about where the money would be spent? Can he now take the House into his confidence and tell us where the money will be spent?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware that hon. Members have asked for a detailed breakdown. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made clear in

Tuesday's debate, it is not possible to give the kind of detailed breakdown that Labour Members are demanding. I suggest that they should look at my hon. Friend's words again.

Mr. Barry Jones: Of the £900 million available for Wales for steelmaking investment, how much will North Wales have?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is proposed—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is interested in Shotton—that the finishing end of Shotton will be one of the most modern finishing ends in the industry.

Mr. George Thomas: Surely the Secretary of State and other members of the Government have not reached the figure of £900 million to be spent in Wales without having a very good idea of how it is to be divided, what proportion will go to Llanwern, what proportion will go to Port Talbot and what proportion will go to other parts of Wales. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an indication of how the £900 million will be made up?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As I said, I cannot add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said in the steel debate. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at his exact words. The Government have accepted that an investment of £3,000 million should be spent in the United Kingdom in the steel industry over the next 10 years. It is agreed by the British Steel Corporation that of that expenditure Wales will get approximately one-third.

Mr. John Morris: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the whole issue of the £900 million at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Small Firms

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will consider publishing the measures taken by the present Government which specifically help the small firm sector.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Certainly. We have already acted on the majority


of the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms and we intend to publish an article in Trade and Industry summarising all the actions we have taken or have in hand. Of course full publicity was given after each decision was conveyed to the House.

Mr. Rost: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Is he aware that the list of measures so far taken by the Government to help small businesses is already longer than the list of measures taken by the previous Government to hinder small businesses? Will he give an assurance that the latest and most welcome proposal to open regional information centres will receive the maximum publicity so that the services will be widely used? Can we have an assurance that one of the centres will be in the Nottingham—Derby area?

Mr. Heseltine: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestion about the location of that office is well considered. However, he will understand the pleasure we have at seeing the lengthening list of the number of forms of assistance we have given to small firms.

Mr. English: As a junior Minister in the hon. Gentleman's Department invited the Lincoln Industrial Committee of the Lincoln Council to meet him on Tuesday, may I ask whether anyone in the Department has informed Jonathan Guinness that the meeting may not take place without telling the Lincoln Council?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that that is related to the question of small firms.

Mr. English: It is.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, the Minister agreed to see a delegation tomorrow, which I have been asked to attend, to discuss the situation in Lincoln. It now appears that for political reasons the deputation has been put off although the Minister has made no approach to me and, as I understand it, no approach to the local authority, although the date was fixed at the request of the Minister and the appointment to meet him was made before the writ was moved for the Lincoln by-election.

Mr. Heseltine: I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should think that any approach to him is required in the matter.

Mr. Mason: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting well away from the Question.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Has this to do with the Question?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the question of aid to small firms, the Lincoln Council's Industrial Committee made an approach to the Minister and to the Department to receive a deputation long before the writ was issued for the Lincoln by-election. He has conveyed the impression that it cannot take place until after the by-election and has sent a letter to the Tory candidate informing him of this. Does not that smack of party politics?

Mr. Heseltine: As it took so long to issue the writ, everything would have had to be done a long time before that.

Mr. English: On a point of order. An hon. Member on the Government side said "Let Dick Taverne lead them next week". As he wishes to cross the Floor, may he do so now?

North Sea Oil and Gas

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has for transferring to Scotland divisions within his Department concerning North Sea oil and gas resources.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): As my right hon. Friend announced on 16th January, a branch of the Petroleum Division will be put in Glasgow to work alongside the new Scottish Petroleum Office. We have no plans for transferring complete divisions to Scotland to work on North Sea oil, but recruitment of further inspectors is taking place to enable permanent postings to be made to this branch.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that simply is not good enough? Can he tell us how many civil servants, when these proposed operations are completed, will be in Scotland engaged in the problems of North Sea oil and how many will be situated in London? As the great proportion of North Sea oil is around the shores and coasts of Scotland,


would it not be much better and more defensible if the whole operation now engaged in in London within the divisions of the hon. Gentleman's Department were moved to Scotland?

Mr. Emery: The main factor for Scotland is to ensure that the OSO and the Petroleum Division can get as much business and as many orders for Scottish industry as possible. What the hon. Gentleman must accept is that the chief supply industries, the financial institutions and those placing the orders on the whole have their headquarters in London, and we can do nothing to make them go to Scotland. Therefore, we are trying to gain positions for both Scotland and London to the benefit not only of Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eadie: But the hon. Gentleman must know that he cannot get away with that answer. He must be aware that, when he visited Scotland with Mr. Gibson in his attempt to defend the office there, the Press that weekend gave him a terrible battering. His arguments were described as unconvincing and specious. How many administrative jobs will this process mean for Scotland?

Mr. Emery: That is a slightly different question from the one on the Order Paper. But one of the things which I noticed in the criticism of me was that the Scottish Press refused to accept that it was beneficial to the whole of Britain that the oil capital of the world, not because of us but because of factors outside the United Kingdom, was more and more becoming London rather than anywhere else, whether it be Brussels, New York or the Middle East. That will be beneficial to the United Kingdom as a whole.

Hotels (Registration)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to bring into operation that part of Part III of the Development of Tourism Act relating to registration and classification; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: A statement will be made about this matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend, but is he aware that consultations on

this point have now been going on for three years? One of the problems recently concerning the Fire Precautions Act and the lack of statistics has emanated from the lack of knowledge about the number of hotels. Although it may not be his direct responsibility, will my hon. Friend do his best within the Department to take a lead in the matter and get something moving?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be inappropriate for me to take a lead in the matter, but I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to my colleague concerned.

Mr. Milne: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the question of appointing a Minister for Tourism in order to facilitate the arrangements for regulation and the other matters in connection with the hotel industry and with travel and tourism? The appointment of such a Minister is an absolute necessity.

Mr. Heseltine: The Labour Government refused to appoint such a Minister and we believe that the arrangements we have in the Department are well able to cope with these problems.

Mr. Mason: As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) said, all the consultations with the interests concerned have taken place since the English Tourist Board started its operations and they are in favour of registration and classification, and particularly of notification of prices. Is that what is holding up the Government from taking a decision in view of the forthcoming value added tax?

Mr. Heseltine: No. There is not yet agreement between the various tourist boards on all the matters involved. We are deliberating on extensive questions and it is important to try to reach agreement.

Prices (Tax Changes)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to make it a statutory requirement that any change in the costs of goods and services, as a result of the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax and the introduction of value added tax, should be marked on the price.

Mr. Emery: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has


made clear, the Government will be taking steps to ensure that consumers are informed of the price change to be expected on a wide variety of items. But it is considered the particular suggestion made by my hon. Friend would not be practicable.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend realise that that will be treated as a disappointing answer? Surely he is not saying that housewives and other members of the public will be expected to know the intimate details of the multiplicity of price changes, upwards and downwards, when value added tax comes in in five weeks' time. Will he look again at this practical and sensible suggestion, which would be easy to implement and would have the widespread approval of the public?

Mr. Emery: I at once accept the major problems involved in the introduction of value added tax. The Government propose to publish a shoppers' guide to give housewives guidance on a selected range of goods and services. This will be given widespread publicity, but the complicated pricing mechanism which my hon. Friend suggests might well be more confusing than helpful.

Mr. Benn: Is it not the case that after 1st April shoppers will find that almost every product has changed its price? The hon. Gentleman must know how much of that is due to the abolition of purchase tax or selective employment tax and how much is due to the imposition of value added tax and how much is simply hit and miss by the shopkeepers. Although the general guide will be a useful document to look at, it will not help the shopper to identify that certain prices have changed. Since the Counter-Inflation Bill, if it is enacted by the end of the month, gives the Government certain powers, would it not be more sensible to make available to the public the information they need to be able to shop around, as the Prime Minister says so regularly they should do?

Mr. Emery: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the consumer will want to know not changes from one shop to another—which may well vary—but what the overall movement of prices because of value added

tax should be. It is in order to give that guidance precisely and definitively that the Government have decided on the policy I have enunciated.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency Sketchley Dry Cleaners, which is part of a large chain, has put about a circular to its customers saying that its prices are to be put up by the whole extent of value added tax when the tax comes in and does not make any mention of the effects of the reduction of purchase tax or selective employment tax? Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is misleading the public, and are the Government able to take any action in cases of this kind?

Mr. Emery: I was not aware of that example. I believe that it would be misleading to do what my hon. Friend suggests has been done, and it is to combat that sort of thing that the Government have decided on the overall publication of a shoppers' guide.

Mrs. Castle: What are the Government doing to prevent unauthorised increases now? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today I have received yet another complaint about Mothercare, this time about the Southend branch? A young mother went into the shop to buy a cot marked in the shop at £9·75. She was told that despite the freeze the price had gone up to £,10·91 and that another increase would take place when value added tax was introduced. Is not this making a mockery of the Government's policy? What remedy have these women got?

Mr. Emery: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will let me have the exact details of this, because it appears to be contrary to the assurances that have been given to my Department.

Advance Factory, Mosshill, Ayrshire

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the action being taken to find a tenant for the advance factory at Mosshill, Ayrshire.

Mr. Emery: We are doing all we can to find a suitable occupier as soon as possible.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that my constituents will find that a rather amazing statement? Is he further aware that the Doon Valley mining area sustained a serious job loss last year and the future is not bright? Does he realise that the people in my constituency are becoming increasingly impatient at the Government's failure to find a tenant for this advance factory? When can we expect better results from Government efforts?

Mr. Emery: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not complacent about this and are doing everything they can to obtain a tenant as soon as possible. We want to see the factory let just as much as the hon. Gentleman does. We want to see it providing jobs for his constituents. I would like his constituents to realise that the Department and the Government generally are just as interested in this as they are.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General what proposals the Government have to increase the income limits of eligibility for legal aid consequent upon the latest recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The recommendations made by the advisory committee in its interim report which was published on 6th February are under consideration.

Mr. Davis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman evinces no urgency about this. Is he not aware that the £25 scheme is shortly to come into operation? Is he not further aware that the effective performance of the legal aid system is dependent upon a change such as that recommended by the advisory committee? Can he spell out some sort of timetable within which the Government are to consider this subject?

The Attorney-General: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is nothing I can add to what my noble and learned Friend said in another place on 14th February, namely, that the interim report of the advisory committee, published on 6th February, is still under consideration.

Mr. Fowler: Is it really in the public interest that men and women with deserving cases are prevented from going to law simply because they cannot afford the heavy costs which might be involved? As the committee presented its interim report as a matter of urgency, is it not incumbent upon the Government to treat it as such?

The Attorney-General: This is something which was treated urgently by the advisory committee but it reported only on 6th February. I do not think it unreasonable that three weeks later I am not able to report further to the House.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would it not now be helpful to have some built-in provisions in the legal aid regulations to provide for periodic increases in the income limits for legal aid to permit those limits to reflect inflationary trends?

The Attorney-General: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Now that the advisory committee has reported and these matters are under consideration, that is the sort of issue which will certainly be taken into account.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, certainly in West Middlesex, the whole legal aid system has now become a bad joke, and not only are the provisions inadequate but they appear to be applied in a way which does no credit to the service?

The Attorney-General: I was not aware of that. I would not have thought that that was the general experience throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman would like to let me have details I will examine them.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Attorney-General what sum of money is now proposed to be spent on advertising the provisions of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972.

The Attorney-General: Two hundred and ninety-five thousand pounds.

Mr. Archer: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm or deny a report that the sum originally envisaged was £400,000 and that the ensuing cut was made at the request of the Treasury? Does he agree that potential recipients of legal advice are those who most need to be informed of their rights?

The Attorney-General: I can only tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is the sum. It will be reviewed if it is felt that more needs to be done in advertising the service. It is proposed to print posters and pamphlets and to have television and Press advertisements. This is the programme for which this money at this time is to be expended.

Sir Elwyn Jones: As it may well be the case that even after this advertising the legal aid facilities will not be sufficiently known or used, may I ask the Attorney-General to look again, I hope sympathetically, at the possibility of providing more finance for the numerous neighbourhood law centres that are springing up to fill the gap in the present legal aid arrangements?

The Attorney-General: This is to advertise and bring this service to the attention of those who are interested. It is a sum which will be reviewed if at a certain time it is thought that there is a need for more advertising and publicity. It is directed at giving information about this important social service.

LAW OF CONTEMPT AND DEFAMATION

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to receive the reports from the committees examining the law of contempt and the law of libel.

The Attorney-General: It is hoped that the report of the Committee on the Law of Contempt will now be received in the summer, and that that of the Committee on Defamation may be received before the end of this year.

Mr. Davidson: How can the Attorney-General justify the excessive and increasing use which he and the Government have made of the law of contempt, particularly at a time when that law is being examined with a view to possible clarification? Is he not aware that, certainly with the contempt action concerning the Distillers Company, the effect of his action was to prevent the free flow of information on matters about which the public had a right to know? How can he jusify his apparent enthusiasm for the law of contempt bearing in mind that when he was in opposition he was

so much against it at the time of Aberfan?

The Attorney-General: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, a learned Member, as I understand it, of this House, should make those comments. He must know that the recent proceedings were instituted after a document had been submitted to me with the comments of the newspaper and that the newspaper had said that it welcomed the fact that proceedings had been brought. Those are the proceedings to which he refers. The committee examining the law of contempt is examining a matter which all have thought needed examination. I welcome that. I think that the House and the newspaper industry will welcome that committee's report, which we expect to receive in the summer.

J. TODD &amp; COMPANY

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate proceedings against J. Todd and Company, of 73 Berwick Street, London, on the ground of the illegal dispatch of pornographic material through the post, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Derby, North.

The Attorney-General: The police are already investigating this matter, and will be reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions shortly.

Mr. Whitehead: May I thank the Attorney-General for that reply, not least because these communications, which are extremely offensive, are accompanied by what purports to be a personal letter thanking the recipient for previous custom when they are unsolicited? This causes great distress to the families concerned.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, particularly the latter part. I have seen this document and I am awaiting the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the Attorney-General have a word with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that if any legislation is forthcoming, as has been rumoured in the Press, dealing with the public display of material which is offensive, it will also include the sort of


example to which my hon. Friend has referred—that is, offensive material sent through the post?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the provisions in the criminal law which arise out of matters which could be proven to have been posted. I will certainly draw the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's attention.

BANKRUPTCY RULES

Mr. Lipton: 43. Mr. Lipton asked the Attorney-General what amendments he now proposes to make to the bankruptcy rules.

The Attorney-General: Amendments now under consideration include provisions for criminal bankruptcy, minor changes in the procedure for taxing bills of costs and in the rules governing public examinations.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we do not want to get bogged down with a lot of side issues? Is he aware that all we want is to provide for the attendance or representation of third parties whose names are mentioned in the course of bankruptcy proceedings? Why cannot he concentrate on that and get that difficulty out of the way as quickly as possible?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is a little ungenerous, because he will recollect last summer his criticisms and complaints when applications were made to adjourn these proceedings because criminal proceedings might be under investigation. The rules governing public examinations are difficult. They need considerable examination. What my noble and learned Friend has in mind is that there should be an adjournment of these proceedings, at the discretion of the court, if criminal proceedings either have been or are likely to be brought. He also has under consideration the provision of the power to exclude all irrelevant or scandalous matter and ensuring that such matter should be excluded from the record.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the Attorney-General in the meantime stress the importance of meticulous accuracy of Press reporting of bankruptcy proceedings, be-

cause it seems to be the case that some of the mischief which has arisen out of recent events may be attributed to bad reporting?

The Attorney-General: This is, of course, a matter for those who are present in court, who do, I agree, have a very considerable responsibility to ensure that accurate reports are given of what actually was said. This is a grave responsibility. The administration of justice depends indeed upon reportting in the Press it is a very important part of the administration of justice, and one expects reports to be accurate.

Mr. Edward Lyons: While appreciating the need for open hearings in matters of public interest, may I ask the Attorney-General to stress the need for both the court and the Press to give equal publicity to subsequent retractions of allegations made previously at such hearings and later found to be false?

The Attorney-General: This is primarily a matter of the sense of fairness of the Press, to set out with equal prominence a retraction or a correction in respect of a matter to which it gave prominence in the first report. The court, I agree, should also draw attention to such matters and do it in such a way that there is more likelihood of prominence being given in the Press report to the retraction.

MEAT PRODUCTS (PRICES)

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has allowed increases in the prices of processed meat products, and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): The reasons for these increases are precisely the same as those for which the Government have been forced to allow increases in other cases, namely, the sharp rise in cost of the various forms of meat involved and the serious decline in profitability of the firms concerned. I have satisfied myself that all these firms are running at very reduced profits and in some cases at a loss. The price rises which I have agreed will require the industry to continue to absorb a significant part of their additional costs.

Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and, more important, the people of this country will consider that a shocking statement? Will he confirm that this is the second increase of such magnitude in the prices of these products in two months? How can the Government regard these companies as having special circumstances when the workers of this country are never regarded as having special circumstances—for example, the gas men, the railway workers, civil servants and agricultural workers on £16·50 a week? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the rate of increase is now running at about four to five times that of 12 months ago? Having regard to pensioners and low-paid workers, will he now consider introducing subsidies? This has now the backing, among others, of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, who suggest using a form of negative value added tax. Is he aware that we have pressed this upon him for some time? According to figures from The Grocer, there has been an increase of 14 per cent. in fresh food prices since the freeze. Will the right hon. Gentleman now remind the other grocer that it is time he fulfilled his at "a stroke pledge", or to get out?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman's facts are not correct. I will seek to correct them for him. In fact, this is not the second increase this year—

Mr. Buchan: Within a year.

Mr. Godber: In December—before Christmas—there was an increase. Thus, to say that it is within two months is quite wrong. The important point is that this rise in fresh meat prices took place well after Christmas.
This is a situation which must be considered in relation not only to the firms but to their workers. At least one distinguished hon. Member opposite has mentioned to me that the jobs of some of his constituents would be in danger if these prices were not put up. The hon. Member has to look at the matter from the viewpoint of all concerned.
Secondly, in regard to the increase in prices, the figure which the hon. Member gave is utterly wrong. The position now is as I have given it to the House already, that food prices have risen since November 1972 from 22·9 per cent. to 27·4 per

cent. This is the figure to the latest known date. There is no published figure since that date. This is the figure which was published oniy the other day. It is a very much smaller figure than that given by the hon. Member.
The simple truth is that these increases have come about, as this House perfectly well knows, as a result of world shortages, and that we are unable without allocation, rationing and subsidisation to affect this position. Even taking account of this, the purchasing power of the pensioner and the earner has still gone up very much more than the cost of living and the cost of food since the last election.

Mr. More: In order that we may see the effect of my right hon. Friend's statement in its proper proportions would my right hon. Friend tell the House what will be the effect of these increases on general food prices?

Mr. Godber: The effect of the increase to which the Question refers, on the general prices index as a whole will be roughly 0·075 of 1 per cent. of the cost-of-living index. This is a very small figure. [Interruption.] These are the facts: 0·075 per cent. It is a very small figure, but I would be the last to minimise the difficulties for the housewives of these high prices. But the fact is that the purchasing power is very substantially higher than when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.

Mr. Jay: Will EEC regulations prevent us from subsidising the retail prices of meat products?

Mr. Godber: Since we have not considered doing so I do not think the question arises. It would not be a practicable thing to do to control these prices without introducing allocation and rationing, which I do not believe the housewife wants.

Mr. Charles Morrison: While regretting that these price increases have been necessary, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will clarify the position by confirming that he is justifying the increases on the basis that there has been a marked increase, which cannot be absorbed, in the cost of imported materials or costs arising from changes in seasonal trends in supply, or other


reasons, and that these are the criteria which justified price increases by the Labour Government in their own White Paper on prices and incomes? Further, would my right hon. Friend not agree that the introduction of value added tax will have a stabilising effect on food prices?

Mr. Godber: Yes, certainly. On both these questions I give an absolute "Yes". Because of the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax there will be a net advantage to the housewife in this regard. As for the criteria, my hon. Friend is right. The previous Government would not and could not subsidise these items in these conditions.

Mr. Loughlin: While appreciating that there may have to be increases in these food prices to maintain the economic stability of the producers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not feel that it is a bit ironical that he should accept this principle and yet at the same time impose that burden upon the very people to whom the Government are denying increases—agricultural workers, shop workers, food manufacturing workers? Would it not be better, once there is this recognition, to subsidise these workpeople's pay packets? Would it not be better for the Government to recognise that they have to subsidise the wages packets of the workers?

Mr. Godber: No. I think the hon. Gentleman is distorting the facts. The position is as I have told the House. The purchasing power of every section of the community is substantially higher than when his Government were in office.
As for the specific categories to whom he referred, they would be entitled to receive their increases in the near future—

Mr. Loughlin: No.

Mr. Godber: Yes. They will be entitled to receive them in accordance with phase 2, and those increases will far more than cover these very minimal increases in the total cost of living index.

Mr. Edward Taylor: If there is a reduction in the price of meat over the next few months, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the prices of sausages

and pies are reduced accordingly? Second, while most reasonable people would accept that, if there is a world shortage of meat, the price must go up, it is rather more difficult to explain why the price of butter should go up when there is a glut of butter.

Mr. Godber: The price of butter has not yet gone up. We all know that, under the arrangements for entering Europe, there will be some increase. That has never been concealed from the House or the public. But as for meat, certainly if the price of meat drops, as I hope it will during the year, we shall look closely at the profits of these firms with a view to requiring reductions as soon as they are justified.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why does the Minister still try to throw dust in the eyes of hon. Members and of housewives? Does he deny that, as was first reported by Alexander Kenworthy, the distinguished agricultural correspondent of the Daily Express, the average family consumed only 11 ozs. of beef and lamb per head in the third quarter of 1972, compared with 14½ ozs. in the second quarter of 1954, when meat was still rationed? Would he now come clean with the House and confirm or deny those figures?

Mr. Godber: The distinguished representative of the Daily Express certainly quoted some figures. I think that they came from the National Incomes Survey—

Mr. Morris: From the Ministry.

Mr. Godber: But the figures that I gave the House when we first debated this matter showed clearly—the hon. Gentleman tried to challenge me on this—that the total consumption of these meats by the average household is substantially higher now than it was then—

Mr. Morris: Rubbish.

Mr. Godber: It is no good the hon. Member saying, "Rubbish." These are the figures of food consumed by the public as a whole. If he is saying that children should not have meat in schools or that workers should not have meat in canteens, then he is talking nonsense. But that food should be taken into account in the total consumption, in which case the figure is higher now than it was then.

Mr. Tom King: While nobody enjoys price increases, is it not a simple fact that, if the Minister refused to grant such increases, in the face of rising raw material costs, the manufacturers might have not alternative but to withdraw certain of these lines? Would not that be much more resented?

Mr. Godber: That is true. One manufacturer has already withdrawn two lines and others have protested to me and want to see me because they say that they will have to close down other lines because the increases that I have allowed, they say, will not cover their increases.

Mr. Hooson: In view of the continued rise in world prices of meat and of grain, upon which the price of meat is largely dependent, mainly due to the failure of harvests in the Soviet Union, can the right hon. Gentleman foresee any hope of stabilising the price in the foreseeable future without a subsidy?

Mr. Godber: If one could forecast the position at harvest time this year, it would be possible to forecast fairly accurately. But the world cereal price position has eased substantially over the past month. Prices have dropped to some small degree. Meat prices are just off the top and are fairly stable. There may be some improvement later this year, but I would not forecast the precise figure.

Mr. Buchan: But, even granted the Minister's troglodyte attitude towards subsidies, is it not in order, even within

the confines of the Common Market, to introduce a negative value-added tax, as the National Institute recommends? Would he not now reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Since the EEC introduced provisions for subsidised butter, before the end of last year, for certain groups, is it not the case that what is good enough for Common Market butter is also good enough for British beef? Would he also confirm, in relation to our entry into the EEC, that, apart from new methods of subsidy, he is in immediate process, from tonight, of unscrambling all the basic support systems which we have had to keep down prices in this country?

Mr. Godber: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's last question is related to the bacon stabiliser, which we shall be discussing later today. I have made clear the position over that and sugar. As for VAT, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on what the Chancellor will or will not say. That is not a matter within my purview, and it would not be proper for me to comment on it. I have told the hon. Gentleman the facts on food. These increases should not be exaggerated, because the figures that I have given show what a minimal effect they have on the cost of living index as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have before us two important debates initiated by the Opposition on Scottish affairs.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY].—considered.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move,
That this House, deploring the fact that there has been in Scotland the longest continuous period of high unemployment since the war, condemns Her Majesty's Government for failing to honour the assurances given by the Prime Miinster in Dundee on 9th September 1969 that a Tory Government would "act to bring new life to areas suffering from high unemployment

Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends—to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
deeply concerned with the problem of unemployment in Scotland, welcomes the fall of 27,000 in the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed in Scotland since February 1972 and commends Her Majesty's Government for the success which their policies are achieving.

Mr. Ross: If there is anything in this motion that strikes a chord of memory in the minds of hon. Members opposite, they should not be dismayed. Right down to the words "Prime Minister", it is exactly the same as a motion moved by the present Home Secretary in the spring of 1970, applicable to the whole United Kingdom.
It was not true then about Scotland, but, sadly, the figures and the facts speak for themselves. In Scotland, we have always feared that, one day, we would reach the figure of 100,000 unemployed. This Government reached it in December 1970, and in no month since then has the figure dropped below that total.
That is not, of course, the Government's only achievement—the trouble with the Minister is that he is always looking up the facts and statistics. The fact is that the February figure—we welcome the fact that it shows a substantial decrease but we would still point out that that decrease masks a change in the unemploy-

ment figures in that, for the first time, at the end of the Christmas holidays, about 20,000 schoolchildren who would have left school and come on to the labour market were retained in school. This has a double effect. First, being in school, they are not likely to be unemployed. Second, those who were unemployed school leavers—I am sorry to say that there are still some, who left school at the summer holiday—have a better chance of finding work. So let us not be too complacent about the drop as compared with a year before. A year before, I think, the figure was 217,700, but that included 70,000 who were temporarily stopped because of the miners' strike.
The actual drop from the year before is about 28,000, and from the month before it is just over 9,000. From that latter figure, one has to deduct those adult students who went back to university without finding a job, which cuts the figure down to 6,900. It is substantial, but it still leaves us with the figure of 123,000 unemployed. According to my reckoning, apart from last year, this is the highest figure for February since 1963, when hon. Members opposite were also in control, and the second worst since the end of the war.
Let no one be complacent that there are 120,000 unemployed in Scotland. That figure contrasts with the promise given by the Prime Minister in Dundee on 9th September 1969:
We refuse to condemn large parts of the Kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment, in pursuit of old-fangled 19th century doctrines of laissez-faire. We shall act. We shall act to bring new life to these areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation.
The unemployment figure for Scotland then was 77,400. Today, on the same calculations, it is 123,000—an increase of 60 per cent. The unemployment figure in Dundee at that time was 2,633. Today it is 5,461. The proof of our motion lies in the promises that were made and the performance.
I am staggered that the Government should think fit to table an amendment which virtually asks us to forget the past and just look at today.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: This is a short debate. The hon. Gentleman is good at interrupting. I hope that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and that he will appreciate why I am not giving way.

Mr. MacArthur: I wish only to make a brief remark.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has already wasted two minutes. Those clear promises were made. To suggest that we should forget what has happened since June 1970 and just look at today is asking too much. That promise was screamed from the housetops by Tory candidates during the election campaign. They promised a complete change. I have here a leaflet that came through my door. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, who was the hon. Gentleman responsible for it, is not here.
George Younger—your Conservative candidate. Under yet another Labour Government there is little doubt it would be the same again; still higher taxes, higher cost of living and another wage freeze. Conservative Government will be quite different. It will bring back prosperity.
It appears from the present unemployment figures that prosperity is slow in coming. The leaflet goes on:
We are asking the electorate to approve a programme that has been very carefully worked out.
For four months after the election there was a standstill. Then on 27th October the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and delivered himself of a great speech. He ended by announcing sixpence off income tax, and all the Tories stood and waved their Order Papers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would slash Government expenditure, he would slash the aid given to industry—investment grants for plant and machinery, and equipment for industry. Ships and agriculture were affected, and so was everything else. The death sentence was pronounced upon the regional employment premium. It was to go in 1974. There was to be a slash in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries. Within the non-development areas there was to be a loosening in the grant of industrial development certificates. Almost everything that was said in that speech resulted in a lack of confidence and created unemployment.
These were the policies to which the Home Secretary referred when he said:
If we could get back to Tory policies, the unemployment position would be a great deal better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May 1970; Vol. 801, c. 421.]
Then the Government did all the usual things. Unemployment rose. The Government had decided what had to be done and, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Development, it had all been carefully worked out.
The Prime Minister told the annual Tory Party Conference:
This strategy I have outlined … will lead to an expanding economy which will enable the standard of living of all our people to rise.
Witness the rise in the unemployment figures. Just because for two or three months there has been a seasonal trend of improvement, there is no justification for elation.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, I have already given the hon. Gentleman his answer.

Mr. MacArthur: I shall be brief—

Mr. Ross: I will not give way. I want to give time for my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite to make their speeches.
We have been this way before. I have here the unemployment figures for every month since 1946 and marked in red are the unemployment figures for the months which were affected by General Elections. In January 1959 there were 116,510 unemployed. Then came the boom of Government expenditure, and the figure came down. It started to rise again after the election. The same happened in 1963. There was a boom that nearly burst this country.
From the accounts of the Select Committee on Expenditure for the past year and this year, we can see the same thing coming again. The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, has told us that Government expenditure is far too high. From the time when the Government changed course, when they found how disastrous were these policies, by their dogma they drove Scotland to the point of decline and disaster in 1971 and 1972.
There are standing in the wings the same villains of the piece as previously


caught up with Scotland. Before we had a taste of the boom, it had ended, and we were back in deflation and balance of payments difficulties. That is why we refuse to turn our eyes from the past.
It is interesting to notice that after the introduction of this revival of Selsdon Toryism, when the era of the lame ducks was brought in, within months there was trouble in Scotland with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and then there was Rolls-Royce and all the rest. The lame duck has now shuffled off to Brussels and I am glad to say that his policies have been forgotten.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should read the article in the Glasgow Herald of 23rd February 1973, in which one of his colleagues talks about Selsdon Man having been buried. The article is headed:
Why no one mourns the death of Selsdon Man".
It is written by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). He recognises that a change has taken place and that the Government belatedly recognise that they were on a policy which was heading for disaster. But unemployment is still with us in Scotland. It is not good enough to say, "Look how it has come down in the past month".

Mr. MacArthur: In the past year.

Mr. Ross: The Glasgow Herald of 23rd February 1973 had something to say about this:
That still leaves Scotland with an unemployment rate about one-and-three-quarter times the national average.
If the rest of Britain had the same unemployment rate as has Scotland there would be 1¼ million unemployed. Yet we are asked to approve the amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, appreciates that that is why we are so angry. We are concerned about this rate of unemployment. The Act from which the Minister's powers stem became law on 9th August 1972 and this Government took office on 18th June 1970. Scotland is paying dearly for those lost years.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Surely the right hon. Gentleman recog-

nises that during the latter part of the time he was Secretary of State for Scotland unemployment rose steadily in Scotland. He knows that the Labour Government left a rapidly rising trend of unemployment. Does he seriously ask the House to believe that the events in the 18 months after the election had nothing to do with the Labour Government's policies?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the Tory Party was as aware of unemployment figures and trends as anyone else. I have quoted the figures. The right hon. Gentleman talked of high unemployment. I reckon that 77,000 unemployed is high. The Prime Minister thought that it was heart rending. What does he think now after 32 months of this Government? Does he think that 120,000 unemployed is a matter of which to be proud? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget, say that it would produce growth? Did he not also say that it would reduce unemployment? He kept saying it.
On 29th April, 1971, the present Home Secretary said:
We shall also continue our regional policies. They are working. They will work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1971; Vol. 816. c. 840.]
A year later the Chancellor threw them overboard. He kept denying that there was a serious unemployment situation until, in his Budget of 1972, he said that the Government were required to change course. In that year we got the Industry Act on 9th August. But we lost all those months.
We did not get new investment in Scotland. The sad thing is that we had our opportunities and chances. We have 120,000 unemployed and we are pretty well on into a great oil boom. New firms are coming in, setting up, and creating new jobs. About 3,000 new jobs have already been created. We should have been in a better position than ever if our regional policies had been right. But the Government scrapped our regional policies. They laughed at them. They did not wait for reports from the House that they had commissioned regarding investment grants. How can the Government ask us to treat them seriously if they also ask us to forget their past and part in the matter?
It does not end there. Things will not be rosy from now on. We know that in the modernisation process of the steel industry we shall lose between 6,500 and 7,500 jobs or job opportunities. There is more certainty about losing jobs than about new ones coming in. The phasing will not be such that Scotland will not notice it. This is in parts of Scotland—Ayrshire and Lanarkshire—which are being hardest hit at the present time, although the figures are serious for the whole of Scotland. The triangle, Greenock-Dundee-Edinburgh, the great industrial heart of Scotland, is where the figures are highest.
Even the figure for Aberdeen at 2·9 per cent. is higher than in September 1969 when the Prime Minister made his speech. It was only 2·6 per cent. then. I have already quoted the figures for Dundee. The figure for Edinburgh is 4·5 per cent. At that time it was 3·3 per cent. The figure for the whole of the Glasgow area, which is much wider than Glasgow as it takes in considerable parts of North and East Glasgow, is 7·5 per cent. It was then 4·4 per cent.
There were considerable changes as a result of, not in spite of, the Government's policies. When it is suggested that we should not talk this way, I remind the House that Hamish Grant, the Secretary of the Scottish CBI, commenting on the figures for last month, said that he welcomed them, but pointed out,
We must not read too much into one month's figures.
He has been on the job before. He has seen the false dawns that have been put before us in the past about this matter.
The shop stewards at Babcock and Wilcox are worried about the possibility of losing more jobs.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Ross: There are people under notice at present.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. MacArthur: Not even briefly?

Mr. Ross: Not even briefly, because I know the hon. Gentleman from the past.
Because of their concern at the possibility of 4,000 jobs eventually being lost in Renfrew, the shop stewards have asked to see the Secretary of State for Employment. He has been invited to visit the plant next month. The same is true elsewhere. There is no abounding confidence in the West and the heart of Scotland about the future.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that Mr. William Jack, the Chairman of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, made an interesting speech on 29th January this year, in which he said:
unemployment is at an intolerable level for those of us who are in work and at a disastrous level for those who are not.
He rightly pointed out:
we must distinguish between employment and loss of employment opportunity. In the most prosperous regions, workers have become unemployed but when the up-swing in the economy establishes itself, they can be reabsorbed into industry. But in the development areas, generally, and certainly in Scotland, not only have men been laid off, but in many cases their jobs have disappeared.
There have been over 100,000 redundancies—those are jobs which have disappeared or they would not be classed as redundancies—since this Government came to power.
Mr. Jack voiced concern about the steel industry—I will not go into that fully today—and about the lack of confidence in the Government's attitude to regional policies. He said:
We welcomed the new regional development incentives, although it must be said that they seem slow to take effect.
That will no doubt be the Government's argument, that they are taking effect, though slowly. I fear they will be even slower and that, before they achieve their effect, something will happen to stop them.
Mr. Jack continued:
We were not so pleased with the raising of the exemption limit for industrial development certificates. There is no doubt that this negative control is at least as important as grants and loans and its slackening at this time will certainly not help the regions. All the indications are that we shall have to keep a close watch on the whole business of regional policy. We who live in the development areas tend to assume that regional development aids will always be with us. … We know that regional policy is under attack in various quarters and that DTI Ministers are under pressure to reduce development aid.


In other words, to get back to 27th October 1970 policies.
We shall almost certainly find, too, that attitudes in the Community to this matter are very different from our own. Altogether, considerable vigilance in this field will be needed.
The Secretary of State delivered a dazzling speech that won him many friends. It slaughtered them in Kirkcaldy and they were dumbfounded in Dunfermline. But the next day he came to this House and told us that he knew of persons or institutions in Scotland who were against the continuation of REP. When we asked him to name the persons or bodies, he said that he could not do that without notice. He has had quite a long time to think about it. I hope that he will tell us today who all these interesting people are.
The next day in The Times there was a plea for the retention of the regional premium.
Prospects of between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs being lost in development areas and the repercussions on industrial confidence as a result of the planned abolition of REP have prompted the Confederation of British industry to press for the continuation of the labour subsidy for a further five years.
As if that were not enough, an article on another page of The Times of the same day said that executives of Guest, Keen & Nettlefold gave evidence to the House of Commons Sub-Committee studying the subject of regional aid and one of the things that they were insisting on as worth while was the regional employment premium. I did not notice anybody taking a stand on behalf of the Secretary of State who is opposed to it.
This study by the CBI and the Department of Applied Economics was related to what was happening in Northern Ireland and what would happen there if REP were removed. The conclusion was that it would mean a loss of 2,000 jobs. In United Kingdom terms that would be between 20,000 and 50,000. The amount paid in REP in a year is just over £100 million, of which Scotland gets £40 million, or two-thirds.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Two-fifths.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that somebody is listening to the figures. One can take it that if this important incentive were

removed the number of jobs lost in Scotland would be between 7,000 and 12,000.
Perhaps I may cite Sir Eric Yarrow, who was concerned about the effect of this decision on shipbuilding. He did not merely want REP to be continued. He wanted it to be increased. In addition, there was the evidence given by the Chrysler executives to the same Sub-Committee, and there is also the view of the STUC. When those views are added together they make a powerful case for asking the Government to think again about their decision to end REP or to phase it out.
From a Scottish point of view the Government have a lot to answer for because of their failure to give the reassurance that is needed and to honour the pledges that they have made. It is still the worst hit areas in Scotland that are being hit hardest. In North Lanarkshire, the unemployment figure is 7·3 per cent.; in Greenock and Port Glasgow, 7·3 per cent.; in Paisley, Renfrew and Johnstone, 4·8 per cent., and in Dumbarton and Alexandria, 8·1 per cent. Those are the figures in Scotland in the midst of what should be a further surge forward. Scotland has again been bypassed industrially, as it has been in the past.
I sincerely hope that the Government will be able today to announce some kind of help for Scotland. I know that Dundee is waiting for help for its shipyards where 96 boilermakers are under notice and where ship orders are urgently needed The orders could come from the Post Office for cable ships, and thus save not only the jobs there but many others.
There is one other factor that must be borne in mind. In 1966, when we were the Government, I suggested that emigration from Scotland was rising at an alarming rate, and I set a target of reducing that figure by half within five years. When we took office the figure was about 45,000 a year. Within a year it had risen to about 47,000, but I am glad to say that during the last year when I was Secretary of State it had dropped to just over 20,000.
Unfortunately, the figure is rising again. The 1970–71 figure showed an increase of 1,600 over the previous year, and in 1971–72 it rose to 27,600, an increase of 7,500 within a couple of years. If we are to


sustain a revival in Scottish industry we cannot afford to lose people, and it is the youngest and the most able who go. In present world circumstances, it is the craftsman and the skilled man who leave the country. This is a dangerous trend and one to which I hope the Government will show they are paying attention.
The amendment asks us to ignore the past disastrous 32 months. It asks people to forget their hardships, their worries and the privations of their families. The House should realise that when a man is unemployed—and far too many have been unemployed for more than a year—it destroys his spirit and disrupts family life.
Young people, too, are finding themselves in difficulties. The number of school leavers who have yet to find a job is more than 1,600. If one includes those under 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months, the figure comes to about 10,000. That kind of situation leads to all sorts of social problems, and it is no good asking people to forget the past. It is no good the Government saying that they have changed their policies and changed their mind.
People in Scotland remember the many promises made to them by the Tory Party over the years. The Prime Minister's message to the Conservative candidate at Dundee is that the Government's policies are fair, practical and necessary. How can a policy be fair if it leads to the kind of situation that I have tried to describe? If the unemployment figure is 120,000, and if this kind of situation has existed for more than two years, one can take it that nearly 500,000 families in Scotland have been affected. The matter is serious indeed.
The answer to whether the Government's policies are fair has been given this week in the London Press as well as in the Glasgow newspapers. We are facing the most serious week of industrial unrest since the General Strike. That is a considerable achievement for a Government who were going to handle the unions in a way that would create harmony.
Some things can be done only on a basin of fairness. Only if there is fairness can there be co-operation. When the Government knock people down and kick them in the teeth and then expect them

to react in a spirit of true co-operation, they are asking far too much. The answer to whether the Government's policies are fair has also been given by the Secretary of State's own civil servants. I gather that some staff from the Scottish Office will be on strike tomorrow. I hope that the cameras will be there to record what happens. Gas workers, water board manual workers, railway men and hospital ancillary workers are not showing any signs of accepting the Government's policies as being fair. A practical policy which creates unemployment on an intolerable—indeed, disastrous—scale in Scotland is not something that we readily accept.
The historical imbalance of Scottish industry and the proper use of our native skills require not just a change in direction but a sustained change. In 1970 the change was in the wrong direction, and it has led to the highest unemployment that we have ever had. The fact that the Government have again changed direction is no guarantee that they will continue this way. Confidence has been eroded. There is no overnight solution, and no magic panacea, whether it be the Common Market or oil. The discovery of oil can help, but it depends on how we control and exploit it.
To this side of the House the lesson of the last miserable Tory months is clear. We require massive investment in new industry. We require a restoration of confidence and the creation of a sense of fairness among the people of Scotland in order to achieve the co-operation that is necessary to improve the Scottish situation. Above all, we need Government participation and action. Never was public control and ownership more relevant than it is today, and more and more people are coming to realise that.

Mr. MacArthur: Oh, no.

Mr. Ross: Their policies were clear. Their performance is equally clear, and it justifies the motion.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
deeply concerned with the problem of unemployment in Scotland welcomes the fall of 27,000 in the seasonally adjusted number of


unemployed in Scotland since February 1972 and commends Her Majesty's Government for the success which their policies are achieving.
The Opposition seem to have an uncanny knack of mistiming the choice of subjects for their Supply Days. On Wednesday of last week they chose this subject and, presumably, composed the motion. On the following day the February unemployment figures were published, showing a dramatic improvement in the unemployment figures—

Mr. William Hamilton: From what?

Mr. Campbell: —following a continuously improving trend for the figures for Scotland since last March. This is where the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was wrong. He again completely mistimed his remarks because, seasonally adjusted, the trend has been an improving one for almost a year, and he said that it was just for two or three months. Those were his words. That shows how out of touch he is with the situation.
It was the same with the housing debate the other day. The Opposition tabled what was supposed to be a motion of censure. It proved to be a strange new parliamentary device—a damp squib that boomeranged. It was prompted by some figures which had just come out on that occasion—the number of houses completed in 1972. But what the Opposition had overlooked until the debate was that the average time between approval for a house in the public sector in Scotland and completion at that period was 24 months. Therefore, the decrease in completions in 1972 simply reflected the declining figures for approvals at the time of the Labour Government's period of office. The motion in that case recoiled upon them.
The same propensity for being irrelevant and out of date applies to today's motion on unemployment. Last Thursday's figures showed an improvement of nearly 10,000 in the number of wholly unemployed in Scotland, and this at a time during the winter when one does not normally expect an improvement to occur. Seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed has fallen by no fewer than 27,000 in the past year.
We welcome the opportunity to have a debate on this important subject despite the backward-looking and meaningless motion upon which it is based. When we came into office in 1970 the unemployment figures in Scotland were shooting upwards alarmingly. That was in mid-summer when one would not expect them to be rising. The figure was 90,000 as we took over, and the right hon. Gentleman was talking about 100,000 being a kind of sound barrier in this matter. This was in mid-summer. It was very clear why the Labour Government had opted for an early election in 1970. We then had to cope with the continuing increase in unemployment after that—an increase which we deplored, with social effects which we have been most concerned to remedy.
There were particular areas of high unemployment in Scotland, most of them in West Central Scotland, which we then upgraded into a very large special development area. We were also particularly concerned about school leavers and shortage of work for young people.
General economic measures by the Government were needed to stimulate the economy and to provide the expansion and alternative jobs to match and to overtake the redundancies. This is being done and the successful results have been seen in recent months. At the outset, however, we produced a massive programme of public works, with the cooperation of Scottish local authorities. This was a task on which we had to set out immediately. It amounted in value to over £60 million in Scotland and provided valuable employment during an immediate and difficult period.
During 1971 and 1972 the Government have taken up every possibility of carrying out or advancing necessary work which could provide welcome jobs. There have been environmental improvement schemes, higher grants for improving housing, and "operation face-lift" for the Glasgow area and elsewhere. All these schemes have been taken up in a way which has been much welcomed by the Government. We have been getting useful work done while at the same time helping to relieve the unemployment situation to the greatest extent possible.
All the time the Government have been giving the highest priority to the


health of the economy and to beating inflation. The combination of Budget measures and of new incentives for regional development has produced the conditions for the growth in the economy in recent months. The Government's policies are having effect and achieving the expansion and increased employment which we see.
But instead of welcoming this good news and acknowledging that the measures are working, the Opposition, as usual, seem to be brooding gloomily on the past and, so far as one can see, on the future, too. Do they want to see further improvement in the unemployment figures? Do they want to see healthy new industrial development in Scotland? Or would this deprive them of their opportunities to voice pessimism and doubt about investment in Scotland's future?
The combination of measures for regional development announced last March precisely suited the requirements of Scotland. This was made clear by bodies such as the Scottish Council and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which had advocated some of these measures. In particular, the system of free depreciation for both manufacturing and service industries was extended widely, thus assisting—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) interrupts, and I can hear what he is saying. This extension to the whole of the United Kingdom was one of the points advocated not only by the Scottish Council but by the STUC. So if the hon. Gentleman does not consider that helpful to Scotland, he does not understand the point to which I was coming, that this was a measure which would assist the capital goods sector and, therefore, very much a part of industry which predominates in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the improvements introduced by the right hon. Gentleman last March were so tailor-made for Scotland's needs, why did Scotland have to wait nearly two years for them to be introduced?

Mr. Campbell: I have spoken of the previous measures, budgetary measures, which, first, were aimed at creating a stimulus to get the economy moving, and then we spread the measures already in

existence, such as the special development areas. This was a weapon immediately at hand. It was the one thing that we could do without legislation. But we then had to think of a combination which had to be put into a Bill which had to be passed by the House—the Industry Act. It took the previous Government two years to bring in their system of investment grants, because that also had to go through the House.
I shall say it again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who one might have thought had been living in Siberia or at the North Pole during this period. For the first two years we had to use what was available without putting legislation through the House, plus the budgetary system. The Budgets were able to bring in, from a fiscal and financial point of view, various improvements. We have thus brought together a combination of measures which required legislation. I am pointing out that these met particular requests of important bodies in Scotland and, as a combination, they were particularly suited to Scotland's needs at the moment they were introduced.
Another point, if I may remind the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have been living at the North Pole during that period, is that the discrimination against firms expanding on the spot compared with incoming firms, which was a source of considerable grievance in Scotland, was eliminated. This was discrimination arising from the system of special development areas which had been introduced by the Labour Government. We had to use them while they were available until we could make the changes by legislation.
Above all, a new Scottish industrial development office was set up quickly in Scotland. Not only does much of the important work on loans and other assistance now take place in Scotland—north of the border instead of in London—but the new office also has powers to take initiatives to assist new development.
The downward trend in unemployment has been accompanied by a welcome rising trend in the number of vacancies available in Scotland. The number of vacancies this month of 16,200 is more than double the figure notified a year ago.
The result of the latest CBI industrial trend survey, published earlier this month, indicates for Scotland a strong increase in output and new orders in recent months. It also shows a fall, since the last survey, in the proportion of firms operating below capacity. This encouraging survey has been supported this weekend by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
All concerned agree, however, that the fundamental condition for industrial success is that the battle against inflation should be won. This is why the Government are giving the highest priority to the counter-inflation programme. Once the uncertainties caused by inflation disappear, there can be a flood of renewed confidence in investment.
The National Institute's annual review of the economic situation, published three days ago, is based on estimates completely independent of Government and made from its own detailed research. It is significant and encouraging that it objectively foresees continued growth in the economy and, commenting on the effect of last year's Budget, it says:
In so far as the major aim of the budget was to bring about a sizeable reduction in unemployment it must be counted a significant success.
Over the past 12 months unemployment in Scotland has dropped by 20 per cent. Although the improvement has been experienced throughout Scotland, hon. Members opposite should be particularly gratified to note that Dundee's rate has improved even faster—by 27 per cent. For the right hon. Gentleman's information, Kilmarnock also has shown a better than average improvement at 24 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention particularly to Dundee and to the need for orders for building ships there. I remind him that only recently the Scottish Transport Group gave an order for building a ferry to Robb Caledon—a Dundee firm which has also put in a bid for Government orders. The firm has yards at Leith and at Dundee. It must decide how best to plan its business. It has one order and has tendered for further Government orders.
The Government have been particularly concerned about jobs for young people in Scotland. We have encouraged indus-

trial training boards to set up special award schemes to provide training facilities for young people unable to obtain apprenticeships, and we have provided financial assistance for these schemes. The Government's vocational training scheme has also been extended to include young people in limited skill courses.
Third, we have just announced our continuing support for the scheme promoted by the National Association of Youth Clubs, known as the Community Industry Scheme and grant aided by the Government. There are two such projects in Scotland—at Glasgow and Dundee. I wish them well.
I come now to Europe. At the European Summit Conference in October the Heads of Government of the Member States of the enlarged Community agreed to give regional policy a high priority in the new Community. It was agreed that a regional development fund should be set up by the end of 1973 and that it would be financed from the Community's resources. The fund would be used to correct the main regional imbalances in the Community, including those arising from industrial change and structural under-employment, as well as from agricultural difficulties. This represented a considerable change in emphasis from the previous attitude of the Six, whose regional problems had been mainly agricultural.
Other Community schemes of assistance include the European Social Fund and schemes under the auspices of the European Coal and Steel Community. Both of these schemes provide assistance for the re-training and re-settlement of workers, the latter applying to re-training coal and steel workers.
What are the attitudes and actions of the Labour Party on this? Entirely negative as far as we can see so far. It decided to boycott the European Parliament and it is taking no part in discussions at Strasbourg or Brussels. I can only describe this as a very unhelpful attitude for Scotland, paradoxically at a time when a former Scottish Member of the House, Mr. George Thomson, is the Commissioner concerned with regional development in the Community.
Scotland's economy is increasingly being affected by North Sea oil. Developments already announced are to provide


at least 8,000 new jobs, with about another 3,000 at the peak construction period of the BP pipeline. About a dozen oil rigs were being serviced from Aberdeen this summer and the number operating off the Scottish coast will rapidly increase.
One of the most important developments has been the establishment of yards for the construction of production platforms. Three of these are now being developed in Scotland—at Nigg Bay, Ardersier and Methil. At the Nigg Bay yard, where already some 500 men are employed, work is proceeding on the largest production platform in the world. Next year it will be fixed in position in the Forties field. Proposals have been made for a further six platform production yards of various kinds. This is an indication of the future possibilities.
Three Scottish steel mills will share in the order for the 140-mile BP land pipeline which has been placed with the British Steel Corporation. Orders for coating the pipes for the under-sea and land pipeline contracts have been placed with firms at Invergordon and Leith respectively.
It is only within the last two years that decisions were taken that the oil found in the formidable and difficult conditions below the seabed could be commercially extracted. It will be two years before the first of it is landed. But things have been happening very fast on the oil scene in Scotland and the Government have been attracting and steering suitable developments to parts of Scotland. Examples of what we are doing are, first, to provide early information and advice to firms connected with the industry. We have enabled the planning procedures to be carried out swiftly and we have taken special action, wherever necessary—for example, at Peterhead.
At Peterhead, the Government were the harbour authority as a result of a local Act of the 1880s but found that they were debarred from allowing any development at all under the same Act because the bay was for use only as a refuge from storms. We immediately presented a Bill to Parliament and managed to get the legislation altered. Since then, everything at Peterhead has gone, at full speed to provide serving facilities for oil rigs.
That work would no doubt have gone elsewhere if it had not been possible for that bay at Peterhead to be made available. That was a one-off task because it was unlike anything else in Scotland, but it involved the Government and we went straight in and managed to ensure that the bay became available for this important new industry in a very short time—a matter of months.
Six well-known Scottish firms are amongst those that won important contracts for the supply of equipment to the new oil industry. The equipment includes pumps, generators, deck modules, cranes and flotation collars.
There is welcome activity at suitable sites along the East Coast of Scotland from Shetland to the Forth. Only last week another project was announced for Dundee, which is the marine base for BP and where new quays are being constructed for servicing vessels for the oil industry. This has all been happening in the space of about 1½ years.
As the exploration spreads, we can expect more oil to be found around the north and to the west of Scotland. The capital investment required and the specially difficult drilling conditions govern the speed at which the stages of extending exploration can be carried out. This is why the Government have made no attempt to estimate the quantity of oil which may be landed in the years beyond 1980. It is at present possible to forecast only for seven years ahead, because a great deal could be found in blocks as yet unexplored. I hope that it will be.
Although this is a new industry for Scotland, the oil discoveries may well be the most important economic event for Scotland of this century.
While we are busy winning jobs for Scotland which might have gone elsewhere, we are at the same time accelerating the programmes for housing, roads and services required for this industry and for the growing communities in the North and North East. The drift of people southwards from the North of Scotland has been reversed, probably for the first time in two centuries. The situation is reflected in the fact that the construction industry in the North of Scotland is fully engaged and can scarcely take on more work without reinforcement in both men and machines. The


kind of work and jobs which the oil industry produces is what we need in Scotland—work for men, in the first place, for there has been a shortage of work for men where work for women has been available—work such as welding, steel fabrication and operating boats and shipping services.
We, therefore, expect some movement within Scotland to fill the new jobs becoming available, but the move will be generally northwards. Last year's new Government scheme of generous grants to help in moving house to new jobs or to retraining gives appropriate assistance available for this situation.
The Government have recognised that the most valuable way in which the new industry can be helped now is through special additional expenditure on roads, housing, harbours and other infrastructure services. This is being done at least two years before the first oil can be landed and any royalties paid. The Government are paying out now in anticipation of receipts in years to come. For example, the SSHA has a special programme of house building to meet the new need in the North of Scotland, and tens of millions of pounds are being spent on the roads to the North and to the North East.
Besides helping the development of this new industry, the acceleration of programmes and extra expenditure is for the benefit of Scotland as a whole, since it is improving and constructing valuable assets for the community.
What is the Labour Opposition's policy towards the new industry? We had their policy discussion document last summer, and the proposal there was for nationalisation. Apparently, this has now been confirmed. I can only describe it as a barren, stultifying, out-dated and irrelevant formula in a field in which innovation and enterprise are especially at a premium.
Should the Opposition ever be in a position to carry out their policy of public ownership, what may we expect? I remember when the British Steel Corporation was being set up, brought into existence under a nationalising Bill of the last Labour Government. But now, only a short time later, hon. Members opposite

appear to distrust and dislike that corporation. We could well see a similar policy for oil, a nationalised corporation, and then, within five or six years, hon. Members opposite attacking it for decisions on investment for modernisation. For those now working on the oil rigs or building the platforms, the Labour Party's policy is simply a threat to the future of their jobs, but, fortunately, a remote threat.
The tourist trade also is important for Scotland. Last Thursday, the Government announced that, subject to parliamentary approval, it is proposed that the grants available for tourist projects in development areas will be about doubled in 1973–74. This is good news for Scotland, especially as the scheme applies only to development areas.
Scottish industry now has greater opportunities than ever before to expand and to develop for the future. There is a growing United Kingdom market. Entry into the EEC will effectively increase the domestic market to about 250 million people, and there are all the opportunities associated with North Sea oil. Over the past year, the Government have taken a whole series of measures to boost industrial development and investment and to encourage employment and the growth and regeneration of industry in Scotland. It is clear from the figures I have given that these measures are succeeding.
There are energetic and enterprising people in all parts of Scottish industry. Scotland is now getting the needed stimulus and can be confident in the success of well planned investment. Modernisation and re-equipment are necessary, and this may well entail changes in jobs and some redundancies, but these will be accompanied by expansion providing more jobs.
The motion is a feeble attempt to discredit the Government. It will fail because our measures have clearly had the effect of reversing the increasing unemployment and deteriorating economic situation which we inherited. Provided that we can control inflation, the prospects for Scotland are good.
We are accustomed to attempts by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to spread gloom and despondency about Scotland's situation. We heard him at it again today.

Mr. MacArthur: He always does it.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, we are not surprised. But his attempts are misplaced, and they will be rejected and ignored.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: After listening to the Cassius Clay speech of the Secretary of State, one could well imagine that the 120,781 unemployed in Scotland today might wonder why we should have this debate.

Mr. MacArthur: Cassius Clay wins.

Mr. Hamilton: But we are used to that sort of thing from the Secretary of State, and we all know the record of the Conservative Party when in Government during the post-war years. In 1963, there were 136,316 unemployed, the highest total in the post-war period up to then, and in 1972, again when the Tories were in Government, we had more than 152,000. Now, in 1973, at a time of so-called expansion, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, and a time of galloping inflation, we still have mass unemployment.
As the Minister for Industrial Development knows, there are redundancies it, Scotland which have not yet been recorded. Only last week, I put a Question to him about a factory in my constituency where 600 people became redundant. Of those 600, in spite of all the jobs about which the Secretary of State tells us, only 40 have so far found fresh employment.
Over the years—this applies to my own Government, too—there has been job loss in Scotland. When the Tories were in Opposition, they used to make great play of this. We are entitled to ask them now what they propose to do about the job losses which have occurred and those which are coming. We read in the Press that the noble Lord the Minister of State, with his special committee, will be settling down to discuss the redundancies coming in the steel industry. Unless there are jobs to match the redundancies coming in that industry, there will be serious problems, particularly in North Lanarkshire, the heart of the steel industry, which was not mentioned by the Secretary of State, where we still have 7·3 per cent. of the insured population unemployed.
I thought that when the Secretary of State for Scotland was talking about the great oil boom and the expansion which is taking place, he was going to tell us that we were to get Hunterston. That is something to which he did not refer. He referred to the pipe-laying industry. In my constituency is the British Steel Corporation's Clydesdale works. Major expansion is taking place there and we are pleased about that, but in spite of all the orders that are coming forward—and he can have my assurance about this because I visited the works—not more than 20 new jobs will be created in the works. So we cannot under any circumstances talk about expansion in view of the very few jobs created.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the programmes which are being carried out by local authorities, school building and other programmes, which must be completed by June this year. Once these programmes are completed many of our craftsman in the construction industry will be unemployed unless local authorities are to introduce housebuilding programmes which will give these craftsmen the necessary jobs. But because of the Government's policy under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act local authorities do not want to build houses which are so urgently required. When we talk about expansion we have to bear in mind some of the factories which have been built in development areas. I visited a factory on a private industrial estate in my constituency which from outside appearances seemed to offer considerable employment, but when I spoke to the people working there I discovered that the job total two months ago was seven and it was expected to reach the magnificent total of 10 by the time they were in full production. Therefore this will not in any circumstances solve the unemployment problem in Scotland.
I am deeply concerned about people who are 45 and over. As they become redundant they are retrained, but retrained for what? I am very much in favour of retraining but it is fallacious to retrain men if there are no new jobs to which they can apply their new skills. The two must go together. My right hon. Friend referred to young people. He mentioned a figure but the latest figure I have from the Minister himself is that 2,137 school leavers who left at the last


school-leaving date have not found their first job.
In Lanarkshire I have discovered that one of the weaknesses is that many of the big establishments are no longer accepting apprentices. One of the major factories in Lanarkshire—not in my constituency—has not taken on apprentices for three years. In my area another large firm did not employ one apprentice last year and consequently many of our young people, because they are disillusioned, feel they have been let down by society and are now moving south, particularly to London.
There are two organisations which look after our young people when they come to London. We have to remember that in Scotland there are only 10 jobs for every 100 youths under the age of 18. We must also bear in mind that in London and the South East there are 201 jobs for every 100 young people leaving school. That, of course, makes it difficult for our young people, and they are coming to London. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) I visited one of the establishments in Soho called "The New Horizon" run by social workers, one full time and many others working in a voluntary capacity. When I spoke to some of the young people there I discovered that the majority of them came from Scotland. Most of them were there because they could not find a job at home.
I do not want to be sensational, but some of these young people are moving around London without accommodation, without knowledge of the situation and with no thought of what they are to do. They quite easily become prey for the prostitutes, drug addicts and drug peddlers. According to the organisation that has happened to some of our young people. Consequently, each and every one of us whether in Government or Opposition, has a moral obligation to try to do something for our young people, and the best possible thing we can do, of course, is to ensure that we get satisfactory employment for them.
I have spoken about apprenticeships. The figures about the young people do not present the true facts. Many of these young people are going to pre-vocational schools. They can attend for five days,

but they receive no remuneration. In many instances that has encouraged them not to take full advantage of the scheme. They go for three days, signing on for social security for two days where they are over the age of 16, and drawing social security benefit. It costs the country £1,560 a year to keep a boy in borstal. Surely we are entitled to devise some way in which we can best help these young people financially.
The construction industry, with which I am very familiar, is not in any circumstances booming in the way that the Secretary of State claimed. There is a boom in the North of Scotland but there has not been a boom for construction workers, particularly since June, in the central belt.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I was referring to the North of Scotland. I did not say that the construction industry was booming in Scotland as a whole. The hon. member must have misunderstood me.

Mr. Hamilton: I did not misunderstand the Secretary of State. I said that he mentioned the oil boom in the North of Scotland. But that will in no circumstances alleviate unemployment in the western region, which we discussed in Committee upstairs, and which is half of industrial Scotland. The Secretary of State said that the Government had introduced measures to make it easy for people to move from one area to another, but if the people who move cannot get a local authority house, the astronomical prices being asked for private houses place them in an impossible position.
My right hon. Friend referred to the regional employment premium. I have discovered in talking to industrialists that they are in a great state of uncertainty. They have made it perfectly clear that because of the uncertainty of Government policy since the Conservatives took office in 1970, because the Government have reversed their policy on many occasions, they are hoping that the Government will take note of the representations made to them and of the plea that has now been made by the CBI, and that they will announce that they are to continue with the REP. The premium could go a long way to restoring confidence in the industrialists and getting them moving in the right direction.
Many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate, so I shall be brief.


I ask the Government not to forget, when they present unemployment figures to us, that the debate is not about the United Kingdom as a whole but about Scotland. I hope that the Minister who replies will refer to my point about the authority given by the Government to local authorities and public bodies to carry out their programmes, which will terminate in June. That means, without a shadow of doubt, that the unemployment figures could easily be back by the end of the year to the 152,000 that we had in 1972.

5.1 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) said, particularly about the employment of young people. I agree that it is vital, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a little pessimistic. Two of the latest sets of figures seem to me to be quite encouraging. The number of unemployed school leavers has fallen by 500 to 1,637. That figure is admittedly too high, but it is falling, which shows that school leavers are gradually being absorbed into employment. Another encouraging point is that since the university term has started again there are no adult students seeking employment, compared with 2,309 last month.

Mr. Ross: The universities were on holiday then.

Sir F. Maclean: I was going to start by congratulating the Opposition on their timing, in choosing today for this particular debate. Until I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I hoped that this showed an entirely new spirit of fair play and generosity on his part. For what other motive could he have had in choosing a time when there is such a marked improvement in both the United Kingdom and Scottish employment figures? What is more, there is every indication that the improvement is not just seasonal, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but a continuing trend, that things are getting better and will get better still. The Glasgow Herald has even foreshadowed that, if things go on like this, within 12 months there will be a labour shortage.
Better still, there are plenty of indications that in addition to this improvement in the employment figures there is an improvement in investment and production, and, because of that, more vacancies. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention any of those things. They are all a direct consequence of Government policy.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, only two things could get in the way of returning prosperity and expansion. One is continuing inflation and the other is continuing strikes and labour disputes. In such a situation, I cannot believe that a responsible Opposition could consciously do anything to encourage either. But that must be something between them and their consciences.
We must remember that when potential foreign investors read that 4,000 Ford workers at Hillington have been laid off—

Mr. Ross: There are no Ford workers at Hillington.

Sir F. Maclean: Sorry: Rolls-Royce, but it does really not matter very much which. The fact is that 4,000 workers have been laid off because of an inter-union dispute—not a dispute between the employer and the workers, and any would-be foreign investor reading the Scottish or British Press will find dozens of such news items. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, that sort of thing will not encourage people to invest in Scotland at a time when more investment is what we in Scotland need most. And, if they do not invest, that will not help the right hon. Gentleman or us or anybody else, least of all the workers concerned.
One of the most encouraging things about the United Kingdom employment figures is that the most marked improvement is in the Scottish figures. And I believe that, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that improvement will continue even more strongly when the effects of our entry into the European Economic Community begin to be felt.
I am delighted, and I am sure that my constituent, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), is equally delighted—

Mr. David Lambie: I did not vote for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is still my constituent, whether he voted for me or not. I have always had a feeling that he did not vote for me, especially when he was standing against me as my political opponent. But, although we may disagree on these minor points, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed in welcoming the improvement that there has been in the employment figures for North Ayrshire. But there are still, as there were under the previous Government, far too many unemployed in Scotland, and in West Central Scotland in particular. I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State one or two ways in which he could help matters in my constituency.
I begin with the island of Bute, which has suffered from depopulation for many years, particularly since the submarine squadron was removed a good many years ago. The island is helping itself in many ways, including the development of its tweed industry and the provision of a seafood factory. I hope that it will also shortly have a bedding factory. But my right hon. Friend could help the island even more by siting a Government Department there. I understand that he is having discussions about that. The island is ideally suited to welcome a Government Department—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Scottish Office?"] Not necessarily the Scottish Office. We want the Scottish Office to continue to keep in the closest of touch. But some Departments can live in little worlds of their own and work out their own problems in comparative isolation. They do not need to be in immediate touch with the centre of things. Everybody said that the Post Office Savings Bank, which my right hon. Friend helped to bring to Scotland, would never manage in Glasgow. In fact, it has managed extremely well.
Another thing that would do very well, and which would possibly benefit by being a little cut off by the sea from the outside world, would be a university or part of a university. I have written to my right hon. Friend about that matter.
Finally I know that the word "marina" is not a very popular word, but the extremely go-ahead Rothesay Town Council has a plan for one which the

Scottish Office is considering, and I hope favourably, at this moment.
The Isle of Arran has recently made an approach to the Prime Minister, of which I know my right hon. Friend will be aware, to secure entry for the Isle of Arran to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I hope that that will be favourably considered. That is a matter which I have put before to my right hon. Friend.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend mention the tourist industry and the encouraging things which he said about it. However, something far less encouraging for the tourist industry is the recent Fire Precautions (Loans) Bill, which will make life very difficult—and I took the matter up in a different context recently—for the small hotelier.
The prospects in North Ayrshire, both in my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central, are not too bad. Certainly the prospects at Irvine are good.

Mr. Lambie: Is it not correct that in the belt from Saltcoats to Kilmarnock there is one of the highest areas of unemployment in Scotland? There is 14 per cent male unemployment in the town of Saltcoats and the hon. Gentleman's constituency? Is that prosperity?

Sir F. Maclean: I said that I thought that the prospects were better. I have already said that the unemployment figures are too high. The figure of 14 per cent. in Saltcoats is one that is open to debate. In fact, I was debating it only last Friday with the father of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that his father is as formidable a debater as he is. In any event, we are both agreed that something needs to be done about the unemployment figure. The hon. Gentleman's father was one of the people who told me that he regarded the prospects of development at Irvine as quite encouraging.
There are other encouraging signs. First, there is the firm of William McCrindle and Sons, which has already started, with, I am glad to say, help from the Government, a flourishing engineering works near Ardrossan and is now talking of developing the shipyard at Ardrossan. If anything comes of those


projects it should employ a couple of hundred men. That may not seem very many but it will reduce the local unemployment figures in the area by a pretty large bite.
I have been invited by the Saltcoats Council, which is so largely composed of the family of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central, and other local authorities, to take a deputation to see the Under-Secretary of State for Development. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in that deputation next week. One of the things we want to discuss is the need for better road communications from North and Central Ayrshire to Glasgow and to the South. That is a matter which should be given serious consideration by the Government. Again, some time ago the Secretary of State told us that £60 million would be devoted to public works and Scotland with the object of giving local employment. The experience of my constituents has not been fruitful in that respect. They keep on putting up schemes and the schemes regularly seem to get shot down by the Scottish Office. I hope that we shall be luckier in future. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss them with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development.
I know that hon. Members from both sides of the House would be disappointed if I did not say a word about Hunterston. It is not a subject on which we always see eye to eye. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central do not agree with me.
The Government have been violently attacked from all quarters for not siting a mammoth green field steel complex at Hunterston. But the fact is that it would not have made any sense for them to have done so. It has now been clearly demonstrated that Hunterston is not the right place for a mammoth steel complex. To put one there in the teeth of all the evidence would be to squander thousands of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money on what could only be a white elephant.
Fortunately, instead of trying to transport the whole thing to North Ayrshire, the Government have done the sensible thing and have left the Scottish steel industry where it is in Lanarkshire and

are now going to rationalise it, make it more economic and, ultimately, increase its productive capacity by around 30 per cent. That is quite a big increase at a time when we should be concerned to increase productivity all round. A modern steel industry will be judged by the quality and the quantity of the steel that it produces and the prices at which it can produce it where it is wanted. A steel industry that falls short of these standards is likely to be doomed to disaster.

Mr. George Lawson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to exaggerate what the Government have said in the White Paper. If he looks a little more closely he will see that what is proposed is an increase over 10 years of 2 per cent. per annum compound which will be just beyond 20 per cent. over 10 years. I am sure that he will join with me in insisting that we want very much more than that in Scotland.

Sir F. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, I am the first to admit, knows more about these things than I. I hope that he will continue to know more than I do about steel from first hand experience. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clear the matter up. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the increase is over 10 years and that perhaps 30 per cent. is an exaggeration. Between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. would probably be more accurate.
If the steel industry is not going to Hunterston, what will happen there? We all want development but we want the right development in the right place. If it had been clear that Hunterston was the best site in Europe for a major steel complex and that Scotland's future prosperity depended on its being sited there, nobody would have resisted it.
We now know that that is not so. But the trouble is that over the last four or five years the name Hunterston has acquired a new significance. It has become a slogan, a myth, a kind of magic symbol. A lot of people who have never been there and who know nothing about it still persist that everything depends on sending something to Hunterston whether it is suitable or unsuitable, whether it is economic or uneconomic and however disastrous it may be to the environment.
Today, there is once again talk of an oil refinery being sited there, either by


an Italian or by an American company. Why should this be when we already have an adequacy, if not a surplus of refining capacity in Scotland, and when, as we all know, siting a refinery at Hunterston would probably mean that BP would have to abandon the proposed extension of its existing refinery at Grangemouth, which is from every point of view a much better and more convenient place for a refinery? Why should anyone want a refinery at Hunterston?
The answer is not far to seek. As I have said, there is at present an adequacy if not a surplus of refining capacity in the United Kingdom. But there is a shortage of refining capacity in the United States. Why is it that the Americans, who are enterprising people, do not build themselves more refineries in their own country? The answer is two-fold. First, having learnt by their own mistakes, the Americans have extremely strong antipollution regulations which make the siting of a refinery in a green field site anywhere in the United States a very difficult undertaking. Secondly, the financial inducements rightly offered by the British Government to bring industry to development areas in Scotland are extremely attractive to foreign firms, as one hopes that they would be. And in this instance, I gather that if a refinery were sited at Hunterston the cost to the British tax payer would be about £120,000 a job. So we as tax payers would be paying through the nose to save the beauty sports of Florida and California while handing over our own Clyde coast to the oilmen to defile and pollute to their heart's content.
It is not as if a refinery sited at Hunterston would make any useful contribution to the British economy or to our own employment problems. It would employ probably only a few hundred men, almost all of them certainly from outwith the area, and probably not many more than would lose their jobs in tourism or in agriculture by the advent of such a refinery. The crude oil would be imported direct from the Middle East and the refined product would be shipped direct to the United States, which would leave nothing behind for us but the stink and stench. The profits, meanwhile, would go to the Italian or the American

oilmen. For them it is certainly an extremely attractive proposition, but not for us. We all want the right development in the right place, but if ever there were a case of the wrong development in the wrong place, it would be an oil refinery at Hunterston.
Not more than a couple of years ago, there was the longest and most expensive public inquiry ever held in Scotland. It was ably presided over and supported by every kind of technical and expert advice. We all admit that the inquiry was absolutely impartial. After examining this question from every possible angle, it arrived at a series of very sensible conclusions. I want the Government to have another look at them. I believe that if they do so, the planning blight, which has hung over Hunterston and the rest of North Ayrshire for so long and held up normal development in other fields, will finally be removed.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In a short debate like this, one can make only so many points and I intend to make, briefly, a limited number.
As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, the unemployment figures in Scotland are grim and the prospects are also uncertain. This is, therefore, not really the time to interchange quotations and abuse. We have to look at the conditions causing the situation and ask ourselves what, if anything, can be done to cure it. I want to make four general points.
First, I think that the effect of automation is very deep and very profound on the unemployment figures. I do not think that it is any longer useful to talk about the need for labour-intensive industry when everyone is striving to produce capirtal-intensive industry. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) gave an example of industry in his constituency which cost a great deal but produced only 20 jobs.
Secondly, and related to that question, is the problem of industrial relations. I know that there is no time to go into this and that this is not an industrial relations debate, but we cannot get round the fact that with industrial relations under stress and the country in a situation of confrontation, as it were, this


harms the possibility of industrial revival. Thirdly, it is difficult, and will become increasingly so, to look any length of time ahead in industry because it changes so extremely quickly.
Fourthly, at this time we are supposed to be in a freeze. I think that there is one item of the freeze, so-called, which has a particular bearing on industry, investment and inflation. This is the whole question of bank interest rates which, since Christmas, during the period of freeze, have gone up by one-third from 5 or 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. This is affecting everyone's thinking on investment and is a considerable promoter of inflation in itself.
It is against the background of these four factors that I want to make my few remarks. If we try to kid the people of Scotland that there is some instant solution, we are not doing our job, because there is not. We have to stop pretending that private industry will ever again intentionally go in for the development of labour-intensive industry. Go into any board room, private or nationalised, and say, "I have found a way of saving so many jobs", and one gets an instant round of applause. Therefore, Government generally must accept the consequences of this and accept that if we are prepared as a nation to subsidise people to be unemployed, we must look to subsidising employment as well, and we must do so much more consciously than in the past. We must work towards some form of job guarantee in the future. I say that as a Liberal quite consciously.
We have it already, although in a haphazard way. But if we removed the regional employment premium and all the other subsidies given to industry in Scotland in a sort of Powellite apocalypse, letting them be whisked away, three-quarters of Scottish industry would collapse overnight because it is so much dependent on them. We must be consciously trying to improve manpower forecasting. The weakness of the Government's White Paper on training is the separation of training from the forecasting of the jobs available.
What specific needs are there? Oil development has inevitably and naturally been raised. Liberals have argued from the beginning that there should be a

development corporation, which would negotiate with the oil companies, would be concerned with the environment and would use some of the revenues when they are eventually available for regional development. I still think this is the right thing to do. I will not enlarge on this because I have spoken of it before. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to talk about "winning jobs" for Scotland in the oil industry because the Government have consciously pursued a laissez-faire attitude throughout.
The important question about the oil industry is the future. Already we have perhaps lost the first round. There is still the question of underwater technology the moment when we go over the Continental Shelf and into deep water. It is distressing to find something like the Heriot Watt Institute of Underwater Technology so badly financed. The Government ought to look at this.
There is the whole question of the general assistance for industry throughout Scotland and the internal regional aids which will be available. The Secretary of State mentioned the EEC. The projected regional fund has been talked about in the EEC for a long time. What rôle does the Scottish Office have in negotiating with our EEC partners not only about the size of the regional fund but also about the relationship between the central and peripheral areas, and what effect that is likely to have on Scotland? Will there be anything to replace the regional employment premium or are we waiting for something, hopefully, at the end of 1973? That is what it looks like. The present indications are that the regional fund will not go anywhere near to producing the £40 million which has been referred to.
How does the Secretary of State see the internal differentials within Scotland working out? Many hon. Members will recall the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which pointed out that there was now very little differential between the Highland Development Board Area and the rest of Scotland and the special development areas. How does he see this working out? He also mentioned tourism. It is a fact that the advantage of SET relief which the tourist industry in the Highlands enjoys will be removed with the application of VAT.
Civil service dispersal has been mentioned and has certainly been promised. We would like some indication of what share Scotland is likely to have. Ocean-span is presumably dead like Hunterston. The Secretary of State never mentioned it today whereas he has mentioned it before in terms of approbation. There seems to be a distressing lack of new ideas from the Government. One wonders why if a "think tank" under Rothschild is necessary in London there should not be something of the sort in the Scottish Office to look at things and see whether there are new solutions, because the problems are deeper than the Government have been prepared to concede.
In conclusion it seems to me that our present unemployment situation is much more deeply dangerous—and I suppose this applies to parts of England—than it has been in the recent past because of the forces I have mentioned. This does not seem to be properly and fully appreciated. There are resources but in connection with, for example, North Sea oil they are not being properly handled. One reads about the Norwegians striking bargains with Phillips which are far better than anything the British Government have succeeded in doing.
It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head in a thoughtful and phlegmatic kind of way. I suppose that Ministers learn to do that after a time. This is clearly the case with the Norwegian Government's demand for a 50 per cent. stake in the construction and operation of the pipeline from the Ekofisk oil and natural gas field. It is much better than anything we have managed to obtain.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will have his own view about the speed with which it was right for successive Governments to develop North Sea oil in our part of the North Sea. This is one of the determining factors.

Mr. Johnston: I take the point about the disagreement over speed. This makes a difference but I do not think that it invalidates the point. The Norwegian Government pursued a different policy from Her Majesty's Government and I think that the Norwegian Government is probably right in the long run.
There is, however, no time to pursue this particular argument for many hon.

members wish to speak. There are resources and with self-government to focus national pride and concern I believe we can make progress. But the future is pretty tough and we would be foolish not to recognise this.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has said that the future is pretty tough. With respect, I would suggest that the future always is. I do not believe that the employment outlook in Scotland is quite as depressing as he suggested. After all, in North-East Scotland which touches largely on the area he represents, we are now faced with the greatest development of natural resources which Scotland has seen, not this century as my right hon. Friend said, but at any time in Scotland's history.
I would like to turn to the text of the motion moved by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I do not want to be discourteous but I must say that I regard this as yet another piece of political opportunism by the Opposition. Last week they were chasing the votes of pensioners in this week's by-elections. Now they are making a desperate last-ditch bid to win votes in Dundee on Thursday by distorting the unemployment position in Scotland.
Last week they failed, and little wonder, because it was the Conservative Government and not their Labour predecessors who took care of the pensioners, just as it was the Conservative Government who acted to look after the over-80s, to increase pensions more than the cost of living and to introduce yearly reviews of pensions. Where Labour talked Conservatives acted, not least in the matter of the special Christmas payment to pensioners. It is no wonder that last week the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) denounced his right hon. Friends for their hypocrisy. I thought he might do so today but instead he has left, presumably in disgust.
The right hon. Gentleman should be denounced today because we have had the same hypocritical approach as we had last week. Anyone hearing the right hon. Gentleman today would be justified in thinking that unemployment in Scotland was rising. In fact it is falling. Over


the last year the fall was 27,000. The Government have thus reversed the rising trend under Labour which continued until the winter of 1971–72. I object to the cheap electioneering of the right hon. Gentleman, despite the fact that this afternoon it was so ineffective.
He pretends to be the champion of the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman is a broken reed when it comes to economic forecasting. It was he who, just before the 1966 election, forecast an increase in employment in Scotland of 60,000 jobs by 1970. He produced 165 pages of White Paper to prove it. In the event he did not gain the promised 60,000 extra jobs. Instead he lost 82,000. His legacy to Scotland was a shortfall of 142,000 jobs. If he had fulfilled the hopes which he presented to Scotland on the eve of a General Election in a blaze of publicity there would have been 142,000 more people at work in Scotland in 1970 than proved to be the case.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to be honest. Is he not doing exactly what he accuses us of having done, while we were the Government? He is talking of the gross, not the net, figures. There was a vast increase of new jobs, and also a vast loss of old jobs. This has been happening all the time. Why can he not do what he lectures my right hon. Friend about doing—be honest?

Mr. MacArthur: Before the hon. Gentleman gets so steamed up, he should read his right hon. Friend's White Paper, which I have before me. That spoke—in net terms, exactly as I am doing—of an increase of 60,000 jobs. The hon. Gentleman must not get so hot under the collar. My figures are absolutely correct and there is no dishonesty about it. If there were any dishonesty in the argument, it was in the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper, producing figures that he could not have fulfilled. If the right hon. Gentleman had kept to his promises in his pre-election White Paper, there would have been 142,000 more people in jobs in Scotland in 1970. We have heard not one word of apology or regret from the right hon. Gentleman. Nor did he, when in office, try to withdraw his discredited White Paper.
Perhaps some part of this miserable failure was brought about by the right

hon. Gentleman himself. Before the 1966 election, he was rightly pointing to the service industries as generators of growth in Scotland, but after the General Election, he slapped on the selective employment tax, perhaps the most damaging achievement of Socialist inventiveness, and went on to increase it twice. So the present Government were bequeathed 142,000 fewer people in employment than the right hon. Gentleman had promised, a crippling selective employment tax which hit the very service industries which he promised to help, and a rising trend of unemployment.
Also, we know now that the Labour Government ran away in June 1970 when they saw the growing shadow of coming events. A Member of the Labour Cabinet at that time has told us that they ran away from rising prices. In the same way, they ran away from rising unemployment. I condemn them for that, as I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their part in reversing the trend.
But it is a great pity for Scotland, and perhaps for Parliament, that the Opposition seek to make cheap political capital out of Scotland's high unemployment and refuse to recognise the improvement that has taken place—a drop, over the last year, of 21 per cent. in the number unemployed.
All of us know that unemployment has been and is intolerably high in Scotland. I suggest, too, that it represents a terrible waste of our largest natural resource—not oil, important though that is, but the skill and talent of our people. Over the years, there has been a substantial growth in the new industries that we need. That growth has taken place under Conservative and Labour Governments. One only has to travel across industrial Scotland today to see the fundamental change in the pattern of employment which has taken place since the war. This is a great thing for Scotland.
But the point is that it has happened. This change has been occurring. It is wrong for hon. Members to discount it and to pretend that we live in a state of gloom and decline. That is simply not true. There has been this substantial growth, but it has not yet been enough to offset the decline in the older industries. Yet every year brings a healthier balance, and the economic base in Scotland is constantly improving.
What we need now, above all, is the prospect of growth in the United Kingdom as a whole, and this prospect has now become a reality. Instead of the stagnation in Britain over which right hon. Gentlemen opposite presided, there is now growth, clearly shown by every economic indicator. This growth, in the United Kingdom as a whole, is a prerequisite for real and meaningful expansion in Scotland. But growth is the child of confidence, and confidence will grow only if the Government are seen to be successful in the fight against inflation.
It is therefore depressing to see and hear hon. Members opposite doing so much, openly or tacitly, to support the forces which are trying to undermine that fight. I should like to believe that both sides of the House could join in the fight to reduce unemployment and in the related battle against inflation, because this would be in Scotland's interests. But the Opposition, setting their short-sighted eyes on Dundee this Thursday, show no sign of comprehending this national need.
I should like to believe, also, that the Opposition would take more care to present Scotland fairly to industry outside. Scotland is not a pessimistic country. A wave of optimism is surging through the country, inspired by the great opportunities following the discovery of oil and presented by the growth of the United Kingdom economy and our entry of the EEC. Yet the Opposition live in permanent gloom. Their faces fall further with every piece of good news.
There are other forces in Scotland that I suggest should consider the harm they could do our industrial prospects. To take perhaps the smallest example, students who demonstrated in Stirling University in the way they did should reflect on the publicity which followed the event and on what it might have done to shape people's opinion of young people in Scotland. The councillors of Clydebank and elsewhere might pause for a moment to think of the impression they give of local authority life in Scotland, when they pick and choose between the laws they will obey or reject.
These people are not putting up barricades in the cause of freedom. What they are doing is undermining the very foundations of life in Scotland. What

industrialist would think seriously about setting up a new factory in an area which badly needs jobs when he sees the leaders of that community, on the local council, as in Clydebank, defying the law, and defying it in a bogus cause? By defying it, after all, they are denying help to the very tenants who need that help. So they are acting not only illegally but also stupidly. Add all this together, and the impression given of the local council is pretty depressing.
I suggest that, because it is events of this kind that hit the headlines—it is always bad news that makes news, and not good news—these are the very facts of life in Scotland that tend to be regarded as the way Scotland is. I believe that what they represent is the way that Scotland is not, but this is the image of life that is being conveyed to the South.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. MacArthur: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is on a better point this time.

Mr. Lawson: I would have agreed with the hon. Gentleman very much if I were not so conscious that he had done his share, and more than his share, of what he is now condemning, when he was on this side of the House.

Mr. MacArthur: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman means. Perhaps he would develop that point—

Mr. Lawson: I should be delighted to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MacArthur: I have no idea what he is referring to. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of ever, in my political or private life, suggesting to any local authority or anyone else that the law should be defied. If a law is unpopular, there are democratic ways of seeking to change it, but it must not be defied.

Mr. Lawson: I am talking of the extremely partisan line which the hon. Member always takes and took, for example, when his party was on this side of the House and as he is doing today—

Mr. MacArthur: About what?

Mr. Lawson: I have not much chance now to develop the point but the hon. Member started by misrepresenting the


Opposition on the matter of the net loss of jobs. He is still misrepresenting the position.

Mr. MacArthur: I have no idea what the hon. Member is talking about in what appears to be a near state of hysteria. If he says I have misrepresented the position, I refer him to paragraph 1 of the White Paper produced by his right hon. Friend. I have presented the figures fairly and honestly, as I have done over the years. The hon. Member must not jump on me in this way. It is unfair and wrong. If he wants to make charges against me I shall be happy to give way if he will take the opportunity to make those charges in clear terms so that I can answer them. Will he do so now?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member may recall an occasion in May 1969 when I dealt with the question, for example, of loss of jobs, and when I explained the position the hon. Member was very partisan as probably nobody on this side would be, and denounced what was happening in gaining new work for the loss of old work. On that question he was partisan to an extreme degree in denouncing what we were doing, and he is now partisan to an extreme degree in presenting the other side of the picture.

Mr. MacArthur: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars so that I can answer them.

Mr. Lawson: I will gladly do it.

Mr. MacArthur: I have presented the picture honestly, and I am sorry that the hon. Member has strayed from allegations about breaking the law, which I resent deeply.
I return to the point that I was making. Clydebank and other local authorities who have voted against implementing the Housing Act are doing very grave harm to Scotland let alone to those tenants who are most hard up. I hope that they, and hon. Gentlemen who, perhaps, sometimes may support them, will think again before they continue in their rebellion, because this does harm, not to the Government but to the Scotland which all of us want to see prosper.
In short, I ask the House to reject the Opposition's motion. Their approach to the critical problem of unemployment

will not help them and certainly it will not help Scotland.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: The Secretary of State said that this amendment was a feeble attempt to discredit the Government. I would say to him—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the hon Member allow me?

Mr. Doig: I have hardly begun.

Mr. Campbell: It was the motion, not the amendment.

Mr. Doig: All right. The right hon Gentleman is quibbling. Never mind The motion, he said, was a feeble attempt to discredit the Government. I would say to him that in the eyes of the public this Government have discredited themselves.
If they want to talk about trends I remind them that the trend was in the right direction. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1921 in Dundee the unemployed numbered 43,000. By 1932 the number had gone down to 38,000. So the trend at that time was in the right direction. At that time there were still more than 40 per cent. of the working population of Dundee unemployed and without a job. Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy about that? The public are not worried about trends. The public are worried about actual figures and the actual figures under this Government are deplorable, as I will try quickly to show.
I take Dundee for example because it is mentioned in the motion and because I believe that it is typical of many places in Scotland. We have in Dundee at present an unemployment rate of 6·2 per cent. I do not like dealing in percentages. I prefer dealing with numbers and with people because they are far more important. That percentage means that 5,461 persons who want jobs have now got jobs. Since the Government took over, it is interesting to note, unemployment in Dundee has never been as low as in the month when it was highest under the Labour Government. In other words, the lowest unemployment under this Government is much higher than when it was highest in the whole period of the Labour Government, and that is quite significant.
Secondly, the unemployment figure in Dundee has never been less than 4,350 under this Government. Since December 1970 it has never been under 5,000. On 18 occasions it has exceeded 6,000; on eight occasions it has exceeded 7,000; twice it has exceeded 8,000; and on one occasion it reached 22,125. That is the record under this Government. Under the Labour Government, to take a comparison of only three single months, the unemployment figure in Dundee never exceeded 4,000, and then only marginally and in the worst month it was only 4,102, a figure lower than the lowest under this Government's record.
To take a fair comparison we have to take a monthly average over the whole period. The monthly average in Dundee during the whole period of the Labour Government was 2,522. In Dundee the monthly average under the Conservative Government is 6,653. We have to compare 2,522 under the previous Labour Government with 6,653 under this Government. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that trend is in the right direction he must have had a form of education different from that which I had.

Mr. Ross: He did.

Mr. Doig: It was certainly in a different place, I agree, but I think there was more logic in mine.
It has been pointed out that last summer there were 20,000 school leavers. In Dundee we have almost 400 boys and girls not who left school at that time but who, having left the previous year, are still unemployed. That is a long time for these young people to be without a job, and yet that is the period of which the Secretary of State is proud. I cannot for the life of me see where there is anything to be proud of in that.
The Secretary of State asks, do we want to improve the employment situation? What in the name of goodness does he think we have been trying to do since the Government took over? What started this disastrous record of unemployment in Dundee? There was creation of special development areas by the Labour Government where pit closures had taken place which started this increase in unemployment. As Dundee was no longer able to offer new industry the highest incentives,

it began to suffer. Under the Labour Government steps were always taken before the situation got very bad. What have the present Government done to correct this?
There have been deputations to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Those deputations included local Members of Parliament, the Lord Provost, who is now Tory candidate in the by-election in Dundee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think hon. Members opposite will be very proud of the record, and the Lord Provost is not very proud of this Government.

Mr. MacArthur: He will be here next Tuesday.

Mr. Doig: He will not. Other councillors went on the deputations as well, and we had representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, which is very loath to go on deputations of any kind. We had the city Labour Party, the trades council, and all sorts of bodies represented on the deputations. They went with one request to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and that one request was that Dundee should be granted special development area status so that it could compete on equal terms. What has happened? Absolutely nothing, after all this time. We are still patiently waiting for the Government to do something about it.
Instead of curing the problem, the Conservative Government have made it worse. They have announced the ending of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, they have relaxed control over industrial development certificates, they are ending the regional employment premium in 1974 and they have increased the number of special development areas. All this is hardly an incentive to cure Dundee's unemployment rate—exactly the reverse.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear me say at the beginning of the debate that the Dundee unemployment rate had improved a good deal more than the Scottish average?

Mr. Doig: If the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the figures I gave, I hope that he will read them in HANSARD.


The message is clear. The unemployment figures every month under the Conservative Government have been higher than the figures for the highest month under the previous Labour Government. That is clear to everyone except the Secretary of State. Perhaps that is why we are in this mess.
Dundee wants the top rate of incentive. When it has been given the top rate it has shown that it is capable of attracting new industries. When Dundee had the top incentives under the Distribution of Industries Act 1945 it attracted so many new industries that the jute mill owners said to the Board of Trade, "For goodness' sake stop bringing new industries to Dundee". That is how successful it was. If Dundee is allowed to compete on equal terms with other areas, it can still attract industry.
The 1964 Labour Government reduced unemployment in Dundee to below 2,000. That was virtually full employment, because the number of people who were out of work was less than the number of vacancies. Our basic industry, jute, has been steadily declining for a long time. Most of our big foundries have gone. The Labour-controlled Dundee Corporation has appointed at its own expense an ex-Lord Provost as the council's "Mr. Industry". The corporation is building at its own expense an extra advance factory. The Dundee Chamber of Commerce has pioneered trade missions overseas.
What can the Government do now to reduce Dundee's unemployment? They can start by paying for the advance factory that Dundee Corporation is building at a cost of £67,000 so that it can be let on the same terms as the Government's advance factories. The Corporation cannot do as the Government do and give two years' free rental. The Corporation has to charge 62p a square foot for this factory of 11,000 sq. ft. that it is building at its own expense.
The Robb Caledon shipyard, which is paying off boilermakers for lack of work, has recently tendered for two cable repair ships for the Post Office. After the submission of the tender, when the shipyard was faced with redundancies, inspectors came round to check, and the Government decided to start the tendering process all over again. I asked the De-

partment of Trade and Industry to speed up the placing of the contract, but instead of doing so the Department is asking for fresh tenders. Why?
The Department of Trade and Industry informed a deputation from Dundee and Aberdeen that 275 supply ships would be required by North Sea oil companies by 1975. I asked the Department to authorise the advance building of a few of these ships in Scottish shipyards, which have not had an order for one, on the same principle as the building of advance factories is authorised. But still there has been no action. The Department refused to authorise the building of any of the supply ships and not one of them is being built in a Scottish shipyard.
Why did the Government authorise a £2½ million development at Montrose Harbour to provide specialised facilities for work boats servicing North Sea oil rigs when facilities are already available in Dundee? Will the Government wake up before it is too late and spent some of the £80 million they estimate they will receive in rents and royalties from North Sea oil? We are told that the balance of payments will benefit from North Sea oil by £800 million in 1980. Would not it be a good idea to invest some of this money now in employment in Scottish shipyards?
With the unemployment in our area, it is shocking to think that we shall be paying off men in the Dundee shipyards when we know that there will be a tremendous demand for ships for North Sea oil, for the building of which Dundee and all the shipbuilding yards on the East coast of Scotland are ideally situated. Yet not one order for a ship has yet come to any shipyard on the east coast.
The Government should come to their senses and get in on this. A private firm which saw a demand for 275 supply ships worth approximately £1 million each would be prepared to build some of them at a loss to start with so as to get in. But the Government will not authorise the building of any of the ships in advance. The Government have a lot to answer for and they will get their answer from the electorate in the Dundee by-election.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench spokesmen were to begin at 6.20 p.m.,


but we have arranged a little extra time for this debate. I hope that we can have now three or four speeches, each of under 10 minutes, two from each side of the House.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: We do not need a debate to convince us that unemployment is a serious problem in Scotland which causes a great deal of misery to all those who are affected by it. What we should be discussing today is whether the action which is being taken is helpful and whether we are going along the right lines. I was depressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who, while deploring the situation, made only one positive suggestion, which was the extension of public ownership.
Those of us who have studied the Scottish position will accept—as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) accepted—that there is a race between the increase in new jobs and the rundown in our traditional industries. It is undeniable from the official figures provided by both Governments that the biggest job loss in Scotland has been from the State industries. There is good reason for this. There has been a massive decline in the railways. The steel industry has been declining over years. There has thus been a substantial reduction of employment in the State industries, and we have to consider whether we are winning the race of new industries against old ones. We have to consider what was the situation in 1970 and what it is now.
There are three facts which cannot be denied. First, in 1970 when this Government came to power, we had 85,000 unemployed, and the unemployment figures were rising rapidly. We now have more unemployed because it is not possible to create new jobs in a short time, but unemployment is falling and we hope that trend will continue.
Secondly, in 1970 industrial production, which is the key to employment, was stagnant. Industrial production is now going ahead faster than at any time during the last 10 years. Thirdly, in 1970 there was a substantial gap in wages between Scottish and English workers. It is undeniable that that gap has almost disappeared.
It is also undeniable that in 1970 there was considerable uncertainty on Clydeside. Even after periodic injections of cash to bail out shipyards, we had a great deal of uncertainty and considerable redundancy. It is undeniable that on Clydeside today, in Upper Clyde and, of course, in Scott Lithgow, we have more confidence than at any time during the past 10 years. Admittedly the situation is serious, but it is improving and I believe that we are going along the right lines.
What matters is the future. Will this improvement continue? It certainly should, because, although we had an ideological conflict between grants and allowances when this Government came to power, I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) would be the last to deny that a firm or industry setting up in Scotland today can get more cash aid for opening a factory than at any time in Scotland's history. This is because we now have grants and allowances and other loan facilities.
We know that North Sea oil will make a major difference to expansion, and the Industry Act gives the Government a massive amount of cash to spend at will in promoting industries which can expand. To that extent, while I agree that the situation is desperately serious, I feel that it is improving and will continue to do so.
I should like to put to my right hon. Friend some questions about the future which worry me. Most of them relate to the Common Market.
An indication has been given that under the Industry Act a great deal of cash will be made available, but the White Paper indicated that the Government intend these new grants to continue for at least the transitional period of entry. I should like to know whether these additional grants will continue after transition.
Secondly, REP or some other form of payroll negative tax is crucial for Scotland. Will it be possible for REP to continue after the transitional period?
Thirdly, may I ask about Hunterston, on which there are differing views. Private steel firms are expressing interest in developing Hunterston. Will such a decision be subject to the ECSC?
Fourthly, there is the new steel pricing system. May we have an indication


whether this will mean higher or lower steel prices in general for Scottish Consumers? More important, for the North and the North-East where the new industrial development is taking place, will it mean that steel in Aberdeen, Inverness and the North-East generally will be considerably more expensive than in Lanarkshire where we have the basing point?
Fifthly, industrial derating is crucial for Scottish industry and jobs. Scottish industry pays 50 per cent. rates. In England the rate is 100 per cent. Will this facility still be permitted under the Common Market rules after the transitional period? My right hon. Friends have consistently said that the Common Market will bring more prosperity to Scotland. However, as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have constantly said, prosperity depends on confidence. It is difficult to have confidence unless firms can look to the future and know that all will be well.
Lastly, has there been any interim indication about the outcome of the Hardman Report on the dispersal of offices? Many people with high qualifications, university degrees, and so on, have emigrated from Scotland because jobs in the Civil Service and other highly paid jobs are available only in the South, not in Scotland. It is important to continue the dispersal policy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us something about that matter.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to answer the questions that I have put to him. The other matters which I wanted to raise I will leave for another occasion because of the shortage of time.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. James Bennett: The Secretary of State for Scotland in his closing remarks criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for tending to brood on the picture of the Scottish economy. In direct contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's complacency, I brood deeply on the vicious high level of unemployment in Scotland.
I welcome any improvement in the unemployment figures. I wonder whether within the figures are those who have left Scotland to seek employment elsewhere. I do not know whether this is a real drop

in unemployment or merely a figure with a difference in the registered unemployed.
Any welcome I may give to the drop in unemployment is tempered by what is happening in Glasgow. The Secretary of State talked of a reduction of 7,000-plus and stressed what is happening in the North-East of Scotland. I am glad about what is happening. Nevertheless, my judgment is tempered by the area in which I find myself. I cannot envisage any future improvement in Glasgow or the Greater Glasgow area, the industrial heart of Scotland, when I look at the figures issued by the Department of Employment.
A year ago I asked the Secretary of State for Employment for the numbers of registered unemployed in Glasgow, not in the Glasgow travel-to-work area. The reply was that in February 1969 there were 21,575 registered unemployed; in February 1970 the figure was 22,702; in February 1971 the figure was 29,737; and in February 1972 the figure was 44,309. In three years, the figure for Glasgow of total registered unemployed had more than doubled. Even if the decrease in unemployment which has now taken place had taken place in that area, it would in no way make up for the tremendous increases which have occurred within these three years.
With one exception, hon. Gentlemen opposite treat this problem with complacency when they hail this drop in unemployment as a major breakthrough. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has at least adopted a realistic approach and expressed a hope for something more tangible. I spend most of my time interceding between management and men on redundancy matters. Rationalisation within an industry may lead to greater efficiency, but it also increases redundancy. However attractive redundancy payment may be, it is no substitute for a steady worthwhile job. There is no alternative employment for those who are made redundant.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has already had correspondence about the strong endeavour to keep the technical department of a firm in my area as a viable concern. Admittedly only 40 or 50 men are involved, but they are highly skilled. If they go elsewhere, I wonder, when this long-awaited breakthrough in


industry takes place, where we shall find the skilled men to man the new industries.
In February I asked the Secretary of State for Employment.
what was the level of male unemployment in the employment exchange area of Glasgow in the years 1970 to 1971; and what are the figures at the latest available date."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 20th February 1973; Vol. 851, c. 50–1.]
In reply I was told that in 1970 the average male unemployment rate was 7·5 per cent. In 1971 it was 10·7, while in January 1973, last month, the average was 11·4. The Secretary of State referred to constantly improving figures. Those figures hardly bear out that statement. Wherever else it may be true, it is not true in the West of Scotland.
Unemployment, with all the attendant evils, is a tragedy, but the greater tragedy is the unemployment that is being experienced in Glasgow and in the rest of Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of males within the Glasgow employment exchange area had been unemployed for more than six months but for less than a year, and what percentage had been unemployed for more than 12 months. The answer was that on 8th January 1973, 17·8 per cent. of males unemployed in the Glasgow travel-to-work area had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks but fewer than 52, and that 28·1 per cent. had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. In other words, 28 per cent. of Glasgow's male work force had been unemployed for more than 12 months.
It is not necessary to have experienced unemployment to realise the despair, the frustration and the uncertainty that it brings in its train. I should not like to dwell upon my own experiences, even though they were so long ago. If a man is unemployed for that length of time, and with no prospect of employment in the future, what is to happen to him if a breakthrough occurs? No matter when it occurs, will there be a place far him in the new industrial set-up? It seems to me that we are prepared to dissipate our best skills whilst waiting for something to happen, irrespective of what happened in years gone by under a different Government.
The constant answer to questions from this side of the House is that when the

Government's policies bite there will be a tremendous improvement. All my information is that the reverse has been the case up to now. All I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is confident that there is to be an end to this vicious problem of employment, please let it be soon.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Everybody is concerned about an unemployment rate which remains intolerably high in Scotland but, equally, everybody should welcome the fact that we have cut the figures and that this trend has been going on for a year. To say that is not to be complacent, but merely to welcome the fact, and long may it continue. I believe that the improvement is primarily the result of the Government's dedicated expansionist policy which will continue to reduce unemployment as long as we have the co-operation in the fight against inflation of the public, of the Opposition and of the moderate and sensible majority of trade unionists.
One of the saddest things about this debate is that few speakers on the other side of the House have said anything about the employment prospects that are opened up in Scotland by our entry into the EEC. I shall not go into the commercial opportunities, but it is sad that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not go to Brussels and that they will not take the opportunity to use what there is in the EEC, namely, the social fund, the European Investment Bank and the regional development fund which is only now being developed and in which we should have a prime part in seeing is developed in such a way as to benefit Scotland. I am sorry that so far Members of the Labour Party are refusing to have anything to do with those things. Their attitude bodes ill for future employment prospects.
I now propose to say something on the subject of North Sea oil, about which so much has rightly been said. I accept that the situation in Aberdeen is exceptional, with an unemployment rate of 2·9 per cent. This is not only better than the Scottish average; it is also better than the United Kingdom figure. I believe that in Aberdeen, as opposed to the North-East area, there is hardly any unemployment except the hard core and


school leavers. For skilled men, such as building workers, there are many vacancies—so much so that a bricklayer in Aberdeen can hope to earn between £100 and £150 a week. This is due mainly, but not entirely, to the discovery of oil, because the food processing industry is expanding rapidly in the North-East, and we must not forget the traditional fishing industry which still employs nearly a quarter of the working population in my constituency.
We must not allow the North-East to become too dependent upon oil, or even upon the spin-offs. Oil will be with us for a generation, but we must look beyond that, and it would be sad indeed for Scotland if we allowed ourselves to be so blinded by the discovery of oil that we failed to see the dangers of non-diversification. I am happy to say that the whole of the economy of the North-East appears to be in a growth situation.
In this context I should like to list a few of the fast-changing figures. They are so fast-changing in relation to oil that when NESDA produced a booklet it had to reprint it within a couple of weeks because the figures had changed in the interval. It is interesting to note that there are now 150 new companies in the North-East devoted solely to the development of oil, and 180 companies which have diversified into oil, producing about 1,800 new jobs, not to mention the jobs in diversified industry, which are so numerous that it is impossible to count them. In addition, there are 5,000 jobs in the pipeline, and of these 60 per cent. will go to local men and women.
One interesting indicator of the tremendous growth in activity in the North-East is that of Dyce Airport at Aberdeen. In 1972 the number of passengers handled was 25 per cent. up on 1971, and in January of this year the figures were 35 per cent. up on January of last year. Total movements of aircraft in 1972 were up 40 per cent. on 1971, and in January of this year they were up a staggering 50 per cent. on the same period last year. That gives some indication of what is going on.
There are seven rigs off Aberdeen, and we expect 20 by the middle of the summer. That means about £1 million per year, for servicing each rig, for fuel, clothing, maintenance and wages, being

spent mainly in the area. As this is a debate on unemployment I should like to mention that NESDA, which is a cautious and distinguished body, estimates that there will be another 5,000 jobs connected with oil by 1975, plus another 5,000 in spin-offs. It further estimates that there will be 12,000 jobs in oil by 1985, and another 10,000 in spin-offs.
That offers tremendous possibilities for the North-East. Others have made different estimates, but I think that the figures which I have quoted are cautious. They do not include the Highlands, about which others will speak and which mirror to a great extent what is going on in the North-East. We also hope for further oil discoveries off the west coast of Scotland.
Increasingly, the problems of the North-East are the problems of prosperity. We must see to it that when we maximise job opportunities we do not forget to conserve the countryside and the natural amenities, or our historic villages and towns. We must not allow the fishing industry to be pushed aside by oil interests.
Having said all that, I think one can say in truth that for the vast majority of people in the North-East of Scotland the terrible threat of unemployment has been removed for the next generation.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I have no notes, and I shall be brief.
What manufacturers and developers are looking for is a secure base from which to mount a progressive attack on unemployment. Devaluation was supposed to be a springboard, but as long as we have a floating pound there can be no secure base. I am not such an active faith-healer as some of my opponents.
I now propose to say something about VAT, and I hope that I may have the attention of the Government Front Bench. This is not an anti-Common Market speech. We are in Europe. Value added tax is a charge at the consumer end, so we have to consider it against a wider horizon than just from where it comes. The application of VAT is a tax on the consumer. Britain is a great importing nation, of both manufactured goods and raw materials. The Minister for Industrial Development would do well to take


a look at the DISC taxation philosophy of the Americans on shipping. If anything needs promoting, it is shipping, which is labour intensive. A 50 per cent deferral tax under reinvestment is operating under the American system, and in that sense could be applied in Britain. I hope that in the forthcoming Budget the Government will take the apportunity to examine that philosophy of taxation.
When dealing with unemployment the Minister should also look at the aviation industry. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House are supporters of Concorde, but it is a 1962 design study and we are now, in 1973, getting it knocked all over, in Britain and elsewhere. Let us remember the amount of money behind the technology to enable us to fly supersonic at some time. I am a reluctant Concorde supporter, but if there has to be a cancellation, Heaven help the resulting unemployed and the escalating results, of which I shudder to think. Let us bear in mind the subcontracting to nearly half a million people involved in the project over the years.
I am wary, but hopeful. I hope that North Sea oil makes the big break. It is not a matter of pollution in America. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology states that the Americans have been selling oil too cheaply but do not intend to raise the price. By raising the price we should get a bonus from North Sea oil, and I wish it well.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and a number of other hon. Members have mentioned the general economic background in the United Kingdom against which we are having this debate about unemployment in Scotland. I do not intend to try to deal with that situation, even briefly, because we shall have ample opportunity for economic debates following the Budget next week. But it seems rather absurd, and positively misleading, for the Secretary of State, for example, to mention the hopeful features in the present situation, including the rise in production, and to mention, for example, the fact that is pointed out in the recent National Institute report, without also referring to the

many unsatisfactory features in the present general economic situation.
Next week the Chancellor will be faced with a number of very worrying choices. There is, for example, as the National Institute pointed out, the prospect this year of a record balance-of-payments deficit. There is the problem about public expenditure, which is dealt with in the useful all-party report produced by the Select Committee on Public Expenditure last week. These publications and the points made in them, indicate that there are hopeful features, but also some very disturbing ones. Over the last two or three years a good deal of Government economic policy, in the wider sense, has been misdirected. It has involved a large expenditure of public money but has not achieved some of the objectives which the Government set for themselves. That is particularly true of regional policy. It must be extremely worrying that now, when we are just for the first time seeing some reduction in unemployment in the regions, we have to face these very difficult and to some extent intractable economic problems.
Concerning the numbers, I found it rather offensive to read the self-congratulatory tone of the Government amendment and listen to the self-congratulatory tone of the Secretary of State's speech. It does not seem to be a matter for congratulation on the part of the Government that they have reduced unemployment from 129,000 to 120,000 when, as has been said by my hon. Friends, even now that figure is substantially higher than it was during even the peak month of the Labour Government and still represents an intolerable waste of human and economic potential in Scotland.
The reduction in unemployment over the last month includes more than 2,000 adult students. That would happen in any case. It is nothing to do with Government policy. We are still faced with the fact that the Scottish unemployment position is the highest in Great Britain, and that we have the poorest ratio of vacancies to unemployed persons of any part of Great Britain. There are no less than 7½ unemployed persons to every vacancy at present. There are particular problems about youth employment. They have been lessened to some extent because of the raising of the school leaving age, but they are nevertheless still


intolerable because of the damage they do to young people leaving school and looking for work for the first time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) said, we have a very serious problem, particularly in West Central Scotland, with long-term unemployment, among males in particular. For male unemployment—perhaps the best indicator of all—the June 1970 figure was 5 per cent., which was still far too high, and the present figure, even after the reductions over recent months, is 7·2 per cent. That is the highest male unemployment figure of anywhere in Great Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members have pointed out that unemployment was high in June 1970. I accept that straight away. It was far too high.

Mr. MacArthur: And rising.

Mr. Millan: I am coming to that point in a moment. The Secretary of State went further. He said that unemployment was soaring out of control in June 1970. If that was the position—I do not accept that it was—it seems extraordinary that in October 1970 the Government should have cut back so savagely on regional incentives. If the Government's reading of the situation in June 1.970 was that a serious unemployment problem was getting rapidly worse one would have expected that in October that year they would increase the regional incentives rather than reduce them drastically. One of the objects of the October 1970 minibudget was to save substantial sums of money on regional expenditure. We said then—it is not a question of being wise after the event—that if such policies were put into operation, if investment grants were removed for example, as they were in October 1970, there could only be the most serious consequences on the unemployment situation in Scotland.
In these debates we have on Scottish unemployment I have no wish to continue to go over the history from June 1970, October 1970, and so on. But these things have to be said so long as we find the Government accepting no responsibility for the extremely tragic situation into which they have plunged Scotland—the extremely serious situation we still have today.
We welcomed the Industry Act. Why should we not do so? It was largely the Labour Government's policy. The only trouble is that this policy, which the Secretary of State assured us today was specially tailored to meet Scotland's precise needs, could have come into operation in August 1970 instead of, perhaps, August 1972. The only regret is that the policy was necessary at all. The previous Government's policy, which was largely the same, had been abolished by the present Government in October 1970. We welcomed the conversion. We also welcomed the Industry Act when it was brought into operation. But very little has yet been paid out in Scotland in respect of the new investment allowances. I hope that the Minister will give more information about that. I hope, in particular, that he will say something not about the number of inquiries there have been in Scotland for selective assistance but about the amount of assistance which has been given. In the early weeks, and even before the Bill was passed through the House, there were many such inquiries. We should like to know how much assistance has been given or how much is pledged by the Government under the Act.
If there is one unsatisfactory feature of regional policy, in terms of incentives, it is the position of regional employment premium. We want to have it made clear whether REP or a similar labour subsidy is compatible with our obligations in the Common Market. The Secretary of State, when asked about that at Question Time last Wednesday, did not seem to know; he hesitated; he could not give a precise answer. We are entitled to an answer now.
It is now universally accepted in Scotland—we are still waiting for the opponents of REP to produce themselves or to be produced for us by the Secretary of State—that a continuation of REP or some other kind of labour subsidy—I do not think that REP in its present form is necessarily the right labour subsidy—is essential if we are not to produce an unbalanced package of regional incentives in Scotland far too geared towards capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive industries, and if we are not to push into bankruptcy many Scottish firms which we know—because they have


told us so—depend upon REP at present to keep their heads above water.
It is essential that we have a statement on REP. It is no use Ministers saying "It will all be dealt with by September 1974". If there is to be any confidence in planning Scotland there must be definite information about the continuation of a labour subsidy. Industry cannot be expected to plan for the future when there is massive uncertainty at the heart of regional policy.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of Civil Service employment in Scotland. If there could be—as we hope and demand that there must be—a massive dispersal of Civil Service employment from London, and if Scotland could share substantially in that dispersal, a considerable boost would be given to the Scottish economy in an area of office employment which is greatly lacking. When this matter has been raised with the Secretary of State he has apparently displayed a certain amount of indifference. I hope that that is a misleading impression. However, the Secretary of State's reaction, for example, to the request of the Lord Provost of Glasgow to meet him about this matter suggests that the Secretary of State has not taken it sufficiently seriously and is not pushing Scotland's interests in the Cabinet as he should be.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are waiting to study the Hardman Report. It was I who convened a meeting, not only with the Lord Provost of Glasgow, but with chairmen of new towns. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) pointed out recently that other places besides Glasgow are interested in this. It is a Scottish question. It is a question with which I have been concerned for more than 10 years, because I was a Minister involved in that very important decision and the subsequent events which moved the National Savings Bank from London to Glasgow, which still provides jobs in Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: These little historical reminiscences are becoming rather embarrassing. We want from the Secretary of State a pledge for action on Hardman now—a pledge that he will fight for Scotland's interests in the Cabinet. If the right hon. Gentleman gives that

pledge we shall be delighted to hear it, and we shall give him every support. The right hon. Gentleman have given little sign so far in his public utterances that he recognises the importance of the issue.
A number of hon. Members opposite have said that a certain amount of employment is coming to Scotland from North Sea oil. It would be a miracle if it were not. There is bound to be employment in Scotland arising from the exploitation of North Sea oil. We complain about its extent and that there has not been a decisive or sufficiently coherent Government policy to ensure that Scottish industry shares in the jobs that are available now in the exploitation of North Sea oil and, more important, builds up an expertise which will enable Scotland to share in the world wide market for equipment and services in relation to oil exploitation off-shore.
The criticisms which we have made repeatedly of Government policy were borne out by the IMEG Report, which stated:
the overall situation still leaves much to be desired. It is instructive to recount that British industry on two former occasions did not gain gain full and lasting advantages from major opportunities to develop business with the petroleum industry.
I shall confine my remarks to the question of employment in the servicing industries, although the Government have similarly mishandled the situation about licensing and revenue.
So far the Government's response to the IMEG Report has been inadequate. They have not established an independent agency—the petroleum industry supplies board, as recommended by the report. The Government set up an office, with a branch office in Glasgow employing only eight people, although IMEG recommended an independent petroleum industry supplies board.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry offensively described as nonsense the suggestion that an office of this sort be established in Scotland; he says that it must be established in London, yet he is a Minister in a Department which is supposed to be responsible for regional planning and the dispersal of jobs to the regions where they are desperately needed.
Apart from the Government's failure to set up the PISB, we still do not know


what is happening about the other recommendations in the IMEG report, some of which are very important. The Government have made no statement. IMEG recommended that the Government, through the Industry Act, should try
to encourage the formation of partnership between British and foreign contractors possessing offshore know-how".
This was to get into the offshore contracting business on a 50–50 basis—50 per cent. to a British partner and 50 per cent. to the foreign partner. Have the Government taken action on this?
IMEG recommended that action be taken to establish
a wholly British offshore drilling capability".
What are the Government doing about that? The IMEG report linked this with direct Government investment, if necessary, in a wholly owned British offshore drilling capacity. We have heard nothing from the Government about that. We have heard nothing about IMEG's proposals about education and training.
We have heard nothing about any plans at Government level to establish the research establishments which will be necessary in Scotland if we are to get the wider exploitation of know-how in this worldwide industry based on Scottish enterprise and experience.
Another recommendation of the IMEG report was that special attention should be paid to the utilisation of engineering industry skills in the West of Scotland belt of high unemployment, and the canvassing of individual firms is suggested by the DTI regional office in Glasgow. What is happening? The report recommended an in-depth study of the opportunities for British participation in all aspects of design and equipment supply in the LNG industry, including the production of LNG carriers—something that my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) has been pressing on the Government for nearly a year, with absolutely no response.
Many other features of the IMEG report are worth quoting, and I have picked out only some of the important recommendations. So far we have had no indication how the Government intend to react to those recommendations. Where they have acted they have made only a timid and inadequate response. On other recommendations there has been no

response at all. There is a growing feeling that in this respect Scotland is liable to miss the boat in the development of this important industry unless the Government show a sense of urgency and take immediate action.
The debate gives the Minister an opportunity to say what the Government have in mind. If he takes that opportunity, we shall be glad to have provided it, but so far there has been nothing, and in this respect, as in so many others, the situation in Scotland is highly unsatisfactory. Government policy on North Sea oil generally epitomises the kind of policy that we have seen for Scottish employment generally, there has been a failure to recognise the seriousness of the problems; there has been a tendency to blame others for difficulties of the Government's own making: there has been a tendency for action when taken at all to come too late and to be at the expense of periods of considerable hardship for the Scottish people.
It is for those reasons that we are moving this motion of condemnation and it is for those reasons that I ask my hon. Friends to support it by their vote in the Lobby tonight.

6.52 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) remarked earlier, this has been a debate that has not altogether escaped the influence of the pending by-elections. Not many who have sat through the debate would think that the motion's reference to Dundee was a coincidence. I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) who, as did the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), spoke of Robb Caledon and its ordering position. The plain fact, as neither hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the firm has won an order from the Scottish Transport Group in the last few days.
I was asked about orders for Post Office cable ships. Such an order was brought forward a few months ago when I was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications as part of the programme for advancing orders to be of assistance to Scottish industry. It was made clear to Robb Caledon, when those on the


short list were asked to re-tender, that a decision would be reached on that tender within a few days.
I am sorry, therefore, that in part this has been an election debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that one is sorry to see in the run-up to these by-elections that a number of totally unjustified hares are being run. An example is the disgraceful article in Labour Weekly suggesting massive redundancies from Ruston Paxman in Lincoln. It is a charge totally without justification, as I believe the firm is to make clear tomorrow.
It has been clear throughout the debate that expansion is now taking place in the Scottish economy at a rapid rate. The fall in unemployment over the past year is only one indication. The CBI's Industrial Trends Survey for Scotland equally paints a picture of industrial expansion and rising investment.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned today with what future progress we are to make. Despite his speech, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock knows perfectly well that throughout the last Parliament there was a steady rise in unemployment.

Mr. Ross: indicated dissent.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman should not shake his head. He knows that unemployment rose from February 1966, when it stood at 2·6 per cent., to February 1970, when it was 4·2 per cent. He knows that he left a rapidly rising unemployment situation. If he is now arguing that the effects of Government economic policies are so instantaneous that nothing done by the Labour Government up to June 1970 had any effect on the next 18 months, I can only say that that is a view to which the Labour Party has been recently converted. One well remembers that at the 1966 election it was not Labour's view that the policies of the Conservative Governments to 1964 were no longer to be felt.
Inevitably, we have heard charge and counter-charge. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are deep-seated problems in Scotland and he made little contribution to their solution. He knows, as I know, that neither side

has a monopoly of wisdom in these matters, and when we look back over regional policy for the past 40 years, nobody pretends that either Conservative or Labour Governments have arrived at a perfect answer. What we say and have said insistently throughout the debate is that the evidence of the past year is that Government measures are working and that the rapidly rising trend of unemployment, gently rising throughout the 1960s, but rapidly rising from 1970, has been reversed, and we have seen significant reductions over the past year.
Nobody will be complacent about that—and I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can be accused of complacency in any sense after his speech today. I strongly resent some of the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about my right hon. Friend, because I doubt whether there has ever been a more vigorous champion of Scotland's interests.
In the process of rejuvenating Scottish industry there are a number of matters of major importance, as all hon. Members have recognised. The incentives now offered to industry in Scotland are important and there is no question but that the Scottish Industrial Development Office is now working effectively. The hon. Member for Craigton asked about the position under the Industry Act. The position at 31st January was that we had had 77 applications for selective assistance, which, if successful, would have involved expenditure of more than £14 million in loan interest relief grant or removal grants. According to the applications—and at this stage that is all we have on which to base the figures—projects linked to these applications would create or maintain more than 8,000 jobs. These are clearly early days, but by any standards those are encouraging figures. Offers so far amount to some £3·3 million on 14 applications.
It would seem that firms in Scotland have got off the mark a good deal faster than those in the rest of the United Kingdom in applying for regional development grants. Of about 3,400 applications, amounting to £9·4 million. for the United Kingdom as a whole, Scotland has over 1,500, amounting to £4·5 million. Thus, well over 40 per cent


of regional development grant applications at present relate to Scotland, and that is a sign of considerable buoyancy.
How has the Act been working so far? I am encouraged by the fact that over 50 of those firms are located in Scotland. It has been one of our major purposes to ensure that these incentives are directed towards firms indigenous to Scotland. It is immensely important that we attract industry from the rest of the United Kingdom and from overseas, but I believe that a large part of the solution to Scotland's industrial and employment problems lies in enabling Scottish firms to expand and in treating them on exactly the same basis as incoming firms.
There is an encouraging number of applications from small firms. I am looking at the procedures which we adopt here because it is important, especially in Scotland, to encourage the smaller entrepreneur. I want to be sure that the procedures and means by which we administer these grants are the most suitable for small firms, and I am not persuaded of that as yet.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), in an interesting speech, discussed the effects of automation and gave it as his opinion that unemployment would inevitably rise and there was little one could do to check it because industries were becoming increasingly capital-intensive. I suggest that he could well direct his attention to what is happening in certain other countries. In Germany, for example, where automation has probably gone faster than it has here, there is none the less a far lower unemployment rate. I do not accept that there is anything in the nature of modern industry which justifies high unemployment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Russell Johnston rose—

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must get on. I believe that a large part of the answer there lies in encouraging the service industries. As the House knows, under the Industry Act selective assistance is available to mobile service projects, and here again we are looking at the way we use the powers under the Act, especially the ways in which they are being publicised, to see whether more can be done to attract office jobs to Scotland.
There have been a number of applications which we have not felt able to approve. The Scottish Industrial Development Board, which has the first task in Scotland of vetting any applications for assistance, rightly takes the view that what it wants are viable concerns. I do not believe that there is any impression in Scottish industry that the Act represents any sort of soft touch, and I hope that it will be generally agreed that it cannot make sense from the standpoint of bringing down unemployment to hack projects which are not likely to be viable and have a permanent future. Increasing emphasis has been placed by the Scottish Office and by the board upon viability.
A word now about the advance factory programme, which will have an important part to play, I believe, in continuing the expansion of recent months. In 1972, DTI factories in Scotland were allocated or sold on an extremely encouraging scale. During that year, 64 factories were either let or sold. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Chairman of the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation said that the level of inquiries and applications in late 1972 and up to date had surpassed all records listed in the past 15 to 20 years.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has not been here during the debate. I hope that he will allow me to get on, because I have a number of points to make and I do not wish to cut into the time for the next debate.
Several hon. Members—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), for example—laid emphasis upon the need for security, recognising that in attracting investment into Scotland it was essential that there be a secure base. One need not emphasise the importance to Scotland of investment from overseas. From 1965 to 1971, under the last Government, one-fifth of additional manufacturing jobs were provided mainly by American firms—by incoming firms or the expansion of firms already in Scotland.
Many will have seen the report of the Economist Advisory Group, published by the Financial Times which shows the enormous scale at which the development areas have benefited from United States


investment and other investment from overseas. It shows how these firms are exporting on a substantial scale, how they represent a high proportion of the research and development effort, and how their performance in nearly every way compares very satisfactorily with their United Kingdom counterparts. The study shows also that the attractions of Great Britain to the overseas investor are substantially increased as a result of our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Ross: indicated dissent.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman has been nodding so far, and I am sorry that he disagrees there. In fact, that is what the study shows. It shows that two out of every five American companies in this country say that they will be expanding faster than they would have been if we were not members of the Common Market, and it establishes moreover that, had we been members from 1958, there would have been 2,500 million dollars more American investment in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) put a number of detailed questions to me about grants. I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him instead of answering now.
I hope that there will be no doubt about the importance for employment and stopping the drift of population away from Scotland of our continuing to attract substantial overseas investment. In this context, one is bound to observe that the Opposition's policy is doing nothing to help. Indeed, Labour's programme of June 1970 is a minor disaster in this respect. It promises that a future Labour Government would ensure that
the Labour Government has the right to appoint public directors to the subsidiary companies of non-resident multi-nationals and to the main boards of resident multi-nationals: that the State—possibly through the State Holding Company—is able to acquire shares in the parent company of non-resident multinationals.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is nonsense. He knows that it would have a devastating effect upon Scotland. I have no doubt that it was the ideologues of the Labour Party who inserted something as nonsensical as that,

and I hope that it will not be long before the Opposition take the opportunity to withdraw that sort of policy statement, since, clearly, it can only do immense damage to Scotland's employment prospects.
There has been considerable reference to oil developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spoke of the exciting developments in his part of the world, of the great increases in employment which are resulting, and of certain shortages of labour which are now being shown.
The hon. Member for Craigton surprised me by the questions which he put. I do not know whether he was away in the early part of January when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a detailed statement on several of the issues which the hon. Gentleman raised. We have lost no time in establishing an offshore supplies office and in appointing a director to it of first-class experience in the field. On nearly ail of the recommendations in the IMEG Report to which the hon. Gentleman referred action is already under way. What we are anxious to do here—

Mr. Millan: There have been two Adjournment debates since we came back from the Recess in which Ministers had an opportunity to tell us what action they had taken. But they have not done so. If the Minister will tell us now we shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the specific recommendations in the IMEG report were recommendations for action by the office. None of those things—for example, the setting up of a British drilling company—is something which can be done instantaneously. [Interruption.] The hon. Member goes parroting on, I suppose in some embarrassment, but we have set up an offshore supplies office and appointed a first-class staff to it, and that staff is already in action. Our purpose is to develop in Scotland an offshore supplies industry that will be able to secure not only a substantial proportion of the £300 million of work available in the North Sea but of the £1,000 million of work that will be available as a result


of offshore development all over the world.
Here again the Opposition's policy is of no assistance. I was not surprised that neither the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock nor the hon. Member for Craigton mentioned the Labour Party's policy on North Sea oil. Neither of them even mentioned the proposals for nationalisation of North Sea oil. I count that in their favour but I do not count it to the credit of the Opposition that they should be advancing a set of propositions which can only strangle the opportunities of the North Sea. As the Glasgow Herald and many independent observers have made clear, any action along these lines would almost certainly be the surest way to stifle the greatest industrial opportunity Scotland has had this century.
Throughout the debate it has been recognised that if the expansion which is now taking place in Scotland is to be continued there must be continuing growth in the United Kingdom economy. In the United Kingdom economy as a whole industrial production rose between the fourth quarter of 1971 and the fourth quarter of 1972 by 7 per cent. That compares with an increase in industrial production between 1966 and 1970 of a mere 8½ per cent. If that expansion is to continue the Government's battle against inflation is of crucial importance. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, and as the Secretary of State emphasised, holding the line against inflationary settlements is important to the United Kingdom economy as a whole, but it is vital to Scotland. All the arguments about special cases, the pleas for treatment outside the limits of phase 2, must be judged against the effect that increased

costs will have on Scotland, Wales and the English regions.

If it is true that on Wednesday the Opposition are intending to confirm that they are in favour of statutory price control but offer no possibility of a statutory limitation on wages they will be committing themselves to a policy which can mean only industrial stagnation and rising unemployment. The link between inflationary wage settlements and rising unemployment should not be unfamiliar to them. It was only five years ago that the then Prime Minister was arguing in support of a 3½ per cent. ceiling on wage increases, which was 1 per cent. below the rise in costs, and that if it were breached there could be 2½ million unemployed. Anyone who is concerned about unemployment in Scotland, therefore, cannot opt out of the battle against inflation.

Unemployment in Scotland rose steadily through the last Parliament and is now falling. All of us believe it possible, and certainly all of us believe it desirable, that that fall should be continued. The Government's policies are designed to continue that process with high growth, the control of inflation and generous incentives to viable investment. But by running away from the reality of inflation, discouraging overseas investment and some disastrous posturing on North Sea oil the Opposition are doing nothing to assist the process. I ask the House therefore to support the amendment and to reject the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 228

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cary, Sir Robert


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Channon, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Astor, John
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Bray, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Brewis, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cockeram, Eric


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Coombs, Derek


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cooper, A. E.


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Cordis, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buck, Antony
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Costain, A. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Critchley, Julian




Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. Jack
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts. Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lambton, Lord
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Skeel, T. H. H.



McCrindle, R. A.



Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Soref, Harold


Fox, Mercus
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sutcliffe. John


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Temple, John M.


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Trew, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Ward, Dame Irene


Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Warren, Kenneth



Osborn, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)



Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Rlcherd


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Younger, Hn. George


James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Jessel, Toby
Ramsden. Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S
Oram, Bert


Barnes, Michael
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Horam, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baxter, William
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Bradley, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfleld)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rowlands, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cronin, John
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Itor (Gower)
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Delargy, Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



Mackie, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Driberg, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tuck, Raphael


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Edelman, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marshall, Or. Edmund
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Forrester, John
Milne, Edward
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtslde)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mudd, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 226.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy



Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McMaster, Stanley


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gardner, Edward
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Astor, John

McNair-Wilson, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Godber, Rt. Hn J. B.
Marten, Neil


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Ball, Ronald
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bowden, Andrew
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernie


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Antony
Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Normanton, Tom


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heselline, Michael
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Channon, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Peel, Sir John


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
Kltson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carthalton)
Lambton, Lord
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael




Simeons, Charles
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mingto
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Soref, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.]
Wilkinson, John


Spence, John
Tilney, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sproat, Iain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stainton, Keith
Trew, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stokes, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Waddington, David



Sutcliffe, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis





NOES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hattersley, Roy
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Janner, Greville
Oakes, Gordon


Cohen, Stanley

Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
O'Malley, Brian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, s.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Delargy, Hugh
Kautman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds. S.)


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sandelson, Neville







Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Sillars, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff.W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stallard, A. W.
Walden. Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)



Steel, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wallace, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, deeply concerned with the problem of unemployment in Scotland, welcomes the fall of 27,000 in the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed in Scotland since February 1972 and commends Her Majesty's Government for the success which their policies are achieving.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE AND LAND PRICES (SCOTLAND)

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move
That this House deplores the hardship caused to the people of Scotland and to young couples in particular by the Government's failure to prevent alarming increases in land prices and the cost of house building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Mr. Speaker has selected the Government amendment to leave out from 'House' to the end of the motion and to add instead thereof:
approves the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate action by all agencies to meet outstanding housing needs and to improve housing conditions in Scotland; and acknowledges that, as a result, the demand for wider opportunities for choice in housing Is now being fully recognised and increasingly met.

Mr. Strang: The Government have presided over the most devastating increase in house prices ever seen in Scotland. The Conservative Party made a great many promises to the electors when they were in Opposition. No group was wooed more assiduously or received more promises than the young prospective house buyers. After two-and-a-half years of Tory rule these promises read like a sick joke. As each month goes by more and more young couples in Scotland are being priced out of the housing market.
Last year the average price of a new house in Scotland rose by a staggering

24 per cent. According to the Nationwide Building Society, the average price of a new house in Scotland in 1971 was £5,592. In 1972 it was £7,361. Since the General Election house prices in Scotland have risen by 43 per cent.
It is worth noting what happened during the last Labour Government's term of office. House prices rose by an average of 6 per cent. between 1965 and 1970. However, the statistics understate the position. In our large cities, and in Edinburgh in particular, a city with which I am familiar, the position is much worse. For example, I learned this weekend about a young couple about to get married, one a teacher who has been teaching one year and the other a lawyer who began practising a year ago. They set about buying a three-apartment flat with kitchenette and bathroom in Bruntsfield Avenue, Edinburgh. That is a modest dwelling. The asking price was £4,500. The surveyor's estimate of the value was £5,200. They offered, having stretched themselves to the limit, £6,200. They learned afterwards that there were three offers over £7,000 and that the flat was sold for £7,300. That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman does not know what sort of people buy these houses.

Mr. Strang: The position is that unless one has a house to sell it is virtually impossible to buy one. A couple who two years ago would have had no difficulty in getting a house are finding nowadays that they literally cannot borrow enough money to buy a house, and the trouble is that it is the houses at the lower end of the scale, the modest-priced houses, which have been showing the biggest increases. Thus, these couples are


forced to live either in rented accommodation, or remain with their parents, or, if they are lucky, get a council house.
But if the increase in house prices is outrageous, the land price situation is a national scandal. I regret to say that statistics are available only for England and Wales, but once again we can turn to the Nationwide Building Society, because since 1966 it has been publishing its surveyor's estimates of the site values of the houses on which it has granted mortgages. It is worth looking at these figures closely. In the six years from 1966 to 1971, the average increase in the price of a house site was 4 per cent. per annum. But the increase last year, between 1971 and 1972, was a staggering 22 per cent.
Anyone who reads the Scottish Press is aware of the position. For example, in Aberdeen an area of about 82 acres went for the average price of about £20,000 an acre. In Edinburgh, an acre of land in Corstorphine sold for £30,000. How can any one justify that position? At the end of the day, the people who pay these big prices, who give the landlord or the land speculator their profit, are the house buyers.
But, of course, the situation is not confined to urban land. There is a similar situation with agricultural land. I quote from a speech made by the editor of the magazine British Farmer and Stockbreeder, reported in the Financial Times on 7th February. He said:
The doubling of farm land prices in the past 12 months has created a new and irreversible situation in British agriculture. By imposing a divorce between the roles of ownership and occupation, it spells the eventual doom of the large owner-occupied farm.
The long-term effect of capital gains tax and estate duty means that more and more devices will be found to encourage city money to be invested in the ownership of farm land.
Increasingly this will leave the farming to farm managers, to subsidiary tenant farming companies, and occasionally to forms of partnership between owners (or a series of owners) and a specialist farming enterprise.
It is no wonder that at this year's Oxford farming conference, for the first time, think, ever, large farmers were becoming interested in the possibility of land nationalisation as a way of seeing that their sons succeed them in their farms.
But if the position with regard to urban and agricultural land is bad, what is absolutely astounding is that we even have

this situation in the Highlands, where land, if nothing else, is plentiful. We are all familiar with the notorious case of the development at Raasay, where a Sussex pathologist, Dr. Green, is succeding in frustrating the building of the car ferry, for which there has been a long campaign. It is surely outrageous that an absentee landlord can stop such development, particularly when it has been agreed between the Scottish Development Department and the Inverness County Council and has been campaigned for for many years by that island community.
That is one example in the Highlands. In June 1971, the Scotsman, in a report headed,
A 'kidnapped' isle for £50,000 plus
said:
That extraordinary Highland phenomenon—high property prices amid a superabundance of land and an enfeebled local economy—manifested itself in London yesterday.
The 600-acre island of Errald, near Iona, has been put on the market at a price 'in excess of £50,000'.
The writer worked out what that amounted to. He pointed out that the deal worked out at more than £80 an acre, or £6,250 a cottage. He went on:
Yesterday the board"—
the Highlands and Islands Development Board—
were a model of discreetness. Sir Andrew Gilcrist, the chairman, would not be interviewed on the subject. The faceless spokesman who is customarily produced on such occasions, came up, after two hours of cogitation, with the statement: 'We are fully occupied with inhabited islands.'
The Aberdeen Press and Journal of 28th April 1972 had a report headed:
Housing the key factor in drift".
It said:
Housing problems were a major factor in the depopulation of the Highlands and the destruction of community life there, according to the two main speakers at the annual meeting of the Highland Fund in Edinburgh last night.
Mr. John Rolle, chairman, said young couples could not afford the prices paid for houses by incomers seeking country retreats, and he appealed to building societies to do more to help younger people in these areas.
Lord Birsay, president of the Fund, spoke of the need to keep communities together and of the success some communities had had in resisting erosion and making vital progress. The danger came in being 'bought over body and soul' by people with no sense of community and no interest in the native culture.


The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs visited Aviemore in the course of its deliberations, but I regret that it did not come to grips with the real problem facing the people of the Aviemore and the Badenoch area in general. It is astonishing that a local councillor there, Mr. Sandy Lindsay, has been trying to buy a piece of land for many years in order to build a house. His sister wrote to the landlords in the Badenoch district, which covers about 1,000 square miles. I quote a letter from the Factor of the Pityoulish estate, which, again, is owned by an English absentee landlord. Mr. Lindsay and his sister knew that there were empty houses but the letter said:
I regret that I have no cottages or houses on my books, and the only sites that I have on my books at the moment are within small residential housing development on the perimeter of Kincraig Village.
He explained that services had been installed and that the prices for these small plots of land were around £3,000 each. That is in the Highlands of Scotland where land is plentiful.
Only this month we learnt that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's holiday chalet scheme has ground to a halt. Why? One of the main reasons is once again the problem of land. A large proportion of the people who wanted to build holiday homes in the Highlands could not do so because they could not get a plot of land at a reasonable price.
The Labour Party has made it clear that it intends to put an end once and for all to a situation where land owners and land speculators can hold the community to ransom in this way. The party is committed to a substantial programme of land nationalisation when it returns to power. The details are being worked out at present.

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith rose—

Mr. Strang: I am sorry but I cannot give way again. We have already lost half an hour of the debate and we must finish at 10 o'clock.
But it will not be sufficient to take the land into public ownership. What is more important is how it is administered and to see that it is made available at reasonable prices for development. That

is precisely what the Labour Party is working on at present.
What about the Government? In this area their policies have been abject failures. They started by blaming wages. It is true that some workers have obtained a significant increase in their wages over the past year. If we look at the increase in prices of newly-built houses and at the increase in wages and materials it will be seen that they cannot justify such price increases. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would seek to pretend that the increased prices of existing houses can be attributed to wage increases. Certainly the phenomenal increases in land prices cannot have anything to do with increases in workers' wages.

Mr. Galbraith: Demand.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. To a large extent this is a question of supply and demand. What has been the supply? Last year, not only did we have a record increase in house prices in Scotland, we also had a record drop in the total number of houses built. The drop was one of 21 per cent. from 1971–72. The number of houses completed in 1971 was 40,744. In 1972 it was 31,990. It is worth noting that in the six-year period from 1965 to 1970 the average number of houses completed in Scotland was over 40,000. In other words, last year's figures represent a drop of 20 per cent. from the average for 1965–70.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the time he is speaking of the average period between approval and completion for public sector housing was 24 months so that 1972 reflected approvals in 1970? Since 1970 approvals and starts in Scotland have increased.

Mr. Strang: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the fact that the main issue affecting the supply of houses last year—and we are talking about the increase in prices last year—was the number of houses completed last year. The Government have been in power for 21½ years. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to show us that he is tackling the problem let him get the number of houses completed per year over


the 40,000 mark which the Labour Government achieved throughout their period of office.
It is not just the supply. It is the demand. What have the Government done to the demand? Their policy of forcing up rents can only worsen the situation and drive out those admittedly few people—but nevertheless in the context of this supply and demand situation, a significant number—who are trying once again to buy the cheapest accommodation to which I have referred.
It is worth asking the Minister what is the position about this under the new pay and price code. I have not had much time to study it in detail but it seems from paragraph 10, in which it says, in subsection (iv), that prices of second-hand goods are excluded that that means that existing houses are not covered by this document. I assume, too, that agricultural land is not covered from a quick reading of paragraph 57. From a cursory reading I suspect that land prices are not covered at all by the code.
It appears that there may be some control over the price of new houses, but it seems that this will be capable of achievement only when some houses on an estate have been sold and it is possible to compare increases in prices. Where houses are being built on a new estate I cannot see how the Government will control prices.
They are not even trying to do so. No one can accuse this Government of not pursuing Tory policies. For the landlords, the landowners, the land and property speculators, things have never been so good. They are making huge profits and receiving generous tax cuts to boot. No doubt they will continue to make large donations towards the Conservative Party's campaign. No one can accuse the Tories of not being good to their friends.
For the tenants and the couples trying to buy their first house, things have never been so bad. Rents are being forced up, house prices are soaring. Wages are frozen. The Government have made no attempt to solve the real housing problems facing the people of Scotland. Indeed, instead of solving them they have made them worse by pursuing policies aimed at enriching that small minority who already own the bulk of the nation's land and wealth. It is on these grounds

that I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
approves the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate action by all agencies to meet outstanding housing needs and to improve housing conditions in Scotland; and acknowledges that, as a result, the demand for wider opportunities for choice in housing is now being fully recognised and increasingly met.

7.56 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I do not think that anyone would deny that the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) about land prices is extremely worrying. The trouble is that it is no good worrying about it if we do not get down to the causes. What is happening? Why is it that people feel that they have to put their money into land and houses rather than into other things? It is happening because of the erosion of the value of money, and this is something to which the Opposition are contributing because they are not supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his attempts to deal with inflation. That is why it is happening. It is no good wringing our hands about it if we are not prepared to stop it.
There are other fiscal measures which affect this just as much. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the effect of capital gains tax and estate duty. If we compare the rates of taxation in this country with those in the other EEC countries it will be found that we are probably being unfairly penalised as a result of the level of taxation on land. This is something which can be redressed. There is another problem. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office told me in reply to a Question I asked not long ago about the amount of agricultural land going out of use every year, the figure is between 4,000 to 5,000 acres annually.
Under present fiscal arrangements people who receive the money for this land must get their money reinvested inside a year. Is this not putting too much pressure on land and unnecessarily forcing up prices? I suggest that these


are some of the reasons and causes. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Oxford farming conference and the fears that people have expressed that farmers' sons will not be able to succeed to their fathers' farms because of the high taxation that will ensue. Exactly the same thing applies to landlords, whether large or small. If we are to get over this question of rising prices we have to try to get rid of scarcity.
I have taken part in one or two housing debates in the last 10 or 11 years but we have never got ourselves properly established about the number of houses we think Scotland needs. Most hon. Members would probably agree that we have never been able to build as many houses as we would like. Thinking over this question I looked at the graph contained in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, No. 3 of 1972, which takes us up to the end of 1971. It is often easier to see things in a graph form. There is an interesting graph in this document. This shows, at the top, that there was a peak of public sector house building in 1967 and, at the bottom, that, at the same time, private house building was at its lowest. Since then, the graph has gone the other way: public sector house building is decreasing and private sector building is increasing.
Does not this suggest to hon. Members that, when there is a big drive in the public sector, the building industry will be able to cope only with a certain amount and that the level of private house building will fall? Conversely, if there is an upsurge in the private sector, there is a shortage of labour and the public sector suffers. Can the Minister give us any information about the Government's idea of what the proper size of the building trade industry should be? If we do not use all the available resources, we shall not get the number of houses we want.
Then there is the question of those houses that have been modernised as a result of improvement grants. The high rate of the grant is coming to an end. Has there been any estimate of the number of houses which still need to be improved and of whether it would be the right policy to prolong this help? I went around some tenement flats in Dundee one day recently—[Interruption.]

I was in pursuit of votes, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in that. I must say I found a lot of support—[Interruption.] We were dealing more with national interests. The byelection is being fought on national policies rather than on more regional ones.
Anyway, I saw large blocks of buildings with four single ends and a shared lavatory on one floor. Plans were in train for modernising them, but the only way of achieving the standard of sanitation and amenity that people deserve is by halving the number of dwellings. I therefore hope that we can try to ensure that, if large quantities of houses need modernising, this will not be neglected, particularly because the cost of the alternative—pulling them down and redeveloping the land—adds substantially to the end price.
The fact that things are not going all that badly in the building trade in Scotland was illustrated in a news item that I read in the Glasgow Herald on the way down today. Headed "Scottish lead in building", it said,
There is more building activity in Scotland than in any other part of Britain, according to the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants.
Figures issued by the Federation at the weekend show that building increased by more than 25% in Scotland last year, compared with 9% in London and the South East and 7% in the Midlands.
The figures are based on the value of building materials and products sold by the firms the federation represent.
I am the first to admit that one must take percentages with a pinch of salt—if one builds two houses instead of one, one shows a 100 per cent. increase, but that does not mean much in terms of building homes—but this shows that there is greater activity in house building in Scotland. This can do a great deal to end the scarcity of houses, which surely does most to reduce the price.
I should also like to know how it is that we get reports of so many empty local authority houses. It cannot be right that we should be so desperately short of houses while many houses are empty.

Mr. John Robertson: I should like to put one part of the record straight. The Secretary of State mentioned 500 empty houses in Paisley, for instance. Yet the right hon. Gentleman


gave permission for them to be demolished, and they had to be cleared of tenants first. Therefore, strictly speaking, although they are empty, they are not available for letting.

Sir J. Gilmour: That would lead me to believe that the statistics are being collected in the wrong way. If a house is subject to a closing order because of projected demolition, it should not be classed as an empty house but should be struck off the strength altogether. I think that the Minister would agree with that. If this has been done in the wrong way in the past, at least we are getting some progress out of this discussion.

Mr. William Ross: But the Secretary of State gave the House the wrong information.

Sir J. Gilmour: I am certain that, if they find that, inadvertently, they have given wrong information, all my right hon. and hon. Friends will be the first to admit it and see that it does not happen again.
I can see no point in our taking up the attitude that we are trying to mislead each other. I hope that we want to do our best to help to get houses for people and that we could join together to that end.

Mr. John Brewis: Does my hon. Friend not remember from his visit to Glenrothes new town that there were 1,200 houses empty? As that is a new town, surely the reason is hardly likely to be that they were due to be demolished?

Sir J. Gilmour: There is some truth in that. One of the troubles is that, in new towns, some houses are kept for previously arranged occupation.
Information which came to us in the Select Committee led us to wonder about the future general policy towards the building of high-rise blocks of flats in our cities. This comes up in paragraphs 106 and 107 of the Select Committee report. One point that was particularly mentioned is that the original density laid down for these blocks was a maximum of 150 persons per acre, but as time went by, the maximum became the minimum and the resultant densities applied over the last 10 years have been too high. Glasgow is in fact to reduce its standard to 110, I think.
It is easy, when one has a desperate shortage of housing, to agree to accept these higher densities. But all our information was that the standard of amenities and standard of living provided at those densities was wrong.
We are talking about the pressure caused by rising land prices, which leads to the argument for building at a greater density. We must resist this argument if we are to build houses with a reasonable standard of amenity.
This is one of the most evocative subjects that we can ever debate. The provision of a home is the most essential matter for any family. No one can be satisfied with the present trend of land prices and something must be done to halt it. I hope and believe that, by beating the scarcity of housing, we can provide houses at a more reasonable price. I therefore support the amendment.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: No one would accuse the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) of wishing to deceive or mislead the House. I certainly would not. Yet he has advanced an argument which, in another but relevant field, is already being seen to be invalid, and he has not applied the findings of his own party in this other field to the question of land.
The hon. Member told us, for example, that, in his opinion, perhaps the outstanding reason for the rapid increase in the price of land is the general inflation, that this process is a hedge against inflation. The argument seems to be that land values will remain fairly stable and that, if prices rise, owners can always realise at the higher price. I would think that the very fact of inflation operating in the general field and operating in land means that in each field inflation is reinforced in the other, and perhaps in land much more than in anything else, because it is seen as enduring. Many people for building purposes, or other purposes, will buy land at grossly inflated prices on the basis of a hedge against inflation.

Mr. Galbraith: What the hon. Member is saying is very interesting. He is saying that land is a hedge against inflation and that this accounts for the high prices. May high prices not be because a man who buys land at what appears to be a


high price knows that because of inflationary wages and salaries the people for whom he will build houses will be able to pay the prices?

Mr. Lawson: He may think this way. That is part and parcel of inflation. I notice the Minister turning round and nodding his head and complimenting his hon. Friend on being accurate. A hedge against inflation? Yes. The answer is to make land more plentiful, according to the hon. Member for Fife, East. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was saying that the prices of these things are so rapidly inflating.
What are the Government seeking to do about this? To intervene in the free market. The Conservative Government have changed about in a remarkable, a wonderful fashion in a very short time. I would sometimes counsel my hon. Friends that instead of attacking the Conservative Government for what the Government do they should be seeking to push the Government further and further, complimenting them, saying that these are excellent Socialist measures which are being adopted. Nothing would so undermine the confidence of the backwoods Conservatives than if the Socialists were complimenting the Conservative Prime Minister for being the best Socialist of all in matters of this kind.
I put it to the hon. Member for Fife, East that he cannot have it both ways. His own party and his own Government come to the conclusion that inflation is of such a devastating nature, or can be, that we cannot leave it to the forces of the free market—so called—but that there must be increasing intervention. I would say, there should be increasingly sensitive and understanding intervention. But intervention there must be. There must be forms of control. I am prepared to see society reaching towards ways by which there can be control. We are moving towards it, but one must recognise that if there is to be control over prices and wages, it cannot be argued that the one great exemption from control should be land and the houses which go on it. It cannot be argued one way only, and I hope that the Minister will not so argue.
I am not necessarily associating myself with my hon. Friends who are arguing for holus-bolus nationalisation. It is not always the answer. I recall a piece of evidence which came to us when, in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we were examining land prices and one member of the Committee asked why it was that the Secretary of State for Scotland was generally regarded as being one of the worst landlords in Scotland. I do not think he got a very satisfactory answer. It would seem to me that mere nationalising does not solve the problem. It may produce new problems. Perhaps in certain circumstances it can put us in a position where we can begin to tackle the problem in other ways.
That is not to say that the problem of control of land prices is not a very urgent problem which requires to be tackled. It requires to be tackled for the person trying to get a house, just as it requires to be tackled for the person who wants to cultivate a piece of land or to manage it in some other way.

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith rose—

Mr. Lawson: I will give way if the hon. Member is anxious to intervene.

Mr. Galbraith: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am following with the very greatest interest what he is saying. What he is saying is that there should be some sort of control over the prices of land. I would like him to tell the House, if he would, the answer to this. Suppose there is this control over prices of land and there are two individuals who wish to buy the same bit of land. How is it decided which is to get it? Is it the one who knows the official or the civil servant best? How is it done?

Mr. Lawson: I would turn it the other way. The same thing applies in the control of wages. Suppose there are two employers and there is a scarcity of a certain type of skill and one employer is prepared to bid up, to pay more, for the skill available. That is the free market, the basis of the kind of thing hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to bring under control. I am saying that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am not objecting to sauce for the goose or for the gander, but let us be more comprehensive in our approach


to the question and recognise that we cannot properly argue for control over incomes without at the same time arguing for control over this other very important field. Do not ask me how exactly I would propose to do it, for I have not time to answer, nor, at this stage, have I particular knowledge, but I know that in various ways it has been attempted, and not at all successfully. However, that does not mean to say that it ought not to be attempted again, and we hope to see more success than there has been in the past.
I make that reply to the hon. Member for Fife, East. I am always in danger, when I set out to reply to an hon. Gentleman opposite, of making a speech different from that which I got up to make. I was provoked into coming into this debate because of certain remarks made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Unfortunately he is no longer here. He told me he could not be here so I am not blaming him, but I shall have to switch my argument in some other direction.
I would suggest that one of the reasons for the sudden spurt of prices for houses, for these very small, often very poor, houses, of the kind of which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gave an example—I think it was at Brinsfield—is the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill which this House passed recently. I think that that may, perhaps, be a substantial part of the explanation for the rise. There can be no doubt—certainly there is no doubt in my mind—that very many people who previously would have thought in terms of a local authority house, and many people who are presently living in local authority houses, were, rightly or wrongly, brought to believe that they would be made to pay through the nose for continued occupancy of local authority houses, that is to say, if they are people with reasonable incomes.
I am not talking of people who are down at the bottom of the incomes scale, who can expect, in some cases, to get substantial rebates. I am talking of the lad with a reasonable wage, the lad who will be paying the standard rent. I put it to the Minister that that lad, if he has any sense at all, will recognise that very

soon, if not just at the moment, in one, two, three, four, five years' time, not very far ahead, he will be subsidising the tenant who comes into the newly built house. It will be he alone who will be subsidising such a tenant. That tenant will not be subsidised from the general rates. He will not be subsidised from Exchequer grant.
What will happen under the Act, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, is that each and every local authority will require to pool its houses, and, on the basis of that pool of houses with an estimated standard rent, the local authority will charge the extra rent which comes into being. For a house costing £7,000, so much per annum for that house will be added to the bill. That, I take it, will not be charged on the tenant for a new house costing £7,000 or £8,000. The economic rent of that house could be paid only by a very prosperous tenant indeed. All the time the lad is living in that house he will know that every new house that is built will add to the rent he will be required to pay because it will be spread over the pool.
If it is Government policy to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to sell as many houses as possible, the houses that will be bought will be those in the middle band, the more desirable houses built during the inter-war period which have been kept in excellent condition and which cost about £400 or £500 to build. Those houses will be sold not at replacement cost, as they should be, but at a substantially reduced price. The local authority will be left with the expensive high flats and the undesirable houses. The more desirable houses will be sold, and those who purchase them will have contracted out of the pool. They will recognise that if they continue to pay the standard rent they will be carrying the actual housing costs without Exchequer subsidy and without the local authority having power to make rent contributions.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend knows that it is even worse than that. If the local authority makes a profit on the housing revenue account, 50 per cent. of that profit goes back to the Government.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is talking about the English position. Scotland has not quite reached that position yet.


The standard rent is supposed to cover the whole cost and the cost of new houses as well.
The Minister will tell us about high-cost subsidies, slum clearance and so on, items that enter the cost of houses over 25 years. That will all be put on the shoulders of the local authority tenant who is paying the standard rent. The knowledge of this will drive people increasingly into the housing market. They will be prepared to pay almost any price—prices far in excess of the worth of the houses—because they are desperate. Many people enter into hire-purchase obligations that they cannot meet, and the same will apply to houses.
I was angered by the misrepresentation of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. Hon Gentlemen on the Government benches have badly misrepresented the position of local authority tenants. They have a long history of hostility towards local authority tenants. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, is sometimes cited as an example of this hostility. We all know about the Rolls-Royce cars and Jaguars at the doors of local authority houses and the argument about the poor old pensioner and the widow having to subsidise those tenants. Adequate housing, with bathrooms and inside lavatories and hot and cold water cannot be paid for out of the wages that large numbers of people expect to earn. If our people are to be reasonably housed, society must bear the cost and make no bones about it.

Mr. Galbraith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this may be something which society has to bear for many people but surely not for the owner of the Jaguar.

Mr. Lawson: The Jaguar argument is rather like the old argument about keeping the coal in the bath.
During the passage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Bill there was widespread talk about taking away the subsidy from the bricks and mortar and passing it to the person. But that has not been the principle applied by the Government. It is happening only in respect of the local authority tenant who is expected to pay the standard rent. It is not happening in private housing. If

the property is other than local authority or Scottish Special Housing Association, there is a substantial subsidy on bricks and mortar which takes no account of the means of the person receiving it.
I made a calculation about some Georgian houses which cost £20,000. The income tax remission on those houses, at the rate calculated by the building society over a 25-year purchase period, which is not excessive, works out at £16·15 per £1,000 per annum. On my calculation, that is about £323 per year as a subsidy on bricks and mortar over 25 years. If income tax changes, the rate will change. However, on the basis of my calculation the figure works out at £323 per house per annum over 25 years.
I am not challenging the payment of money on bricks and mortar. However, if such a subsidy can be paid in that connection, I contend that it certainly should be paid to local authorities. I do not see why a local authority, paying out £6,000 or £7,000 per house, should not get at least what would go in income tax remission over the purchase period.
People are crying out for honesty. They want the position accurately represented. Let us be partisan occasionally, but let us also recognise that certain matters must be presented in a straightforward way. People are beginning to recognise that the more money they have, the more expensive their houses, the greater the amounts they will be able to draw from the public purse. This is not their own money which has been taxed from them; it is the equivalent of public money. This is happening not only with a person's private home, but with a second house in the country. If it is fair in that connection for the owner of private property, it must be done for local authorities as well.
On Wednesday of last week the Minister bragged or boasted that the number of approvals in 1972 was up on what it had been in 1971 or 1970. Of course, he gave the figure for the early part of the year. The important figure is that for the latter part of the year. What is the rate that is now beginning to show itself in terms of local authorities asking permission to build houses? I should be surprised if there is not a steep and continuing fall in the number of applications for permission to build houses.
I do not know why they need permission. A local authority is no longer an authority for houses but an agent. One of the grievances which arose in the recent dispute between local authorities and the Government was that they had been turned into agents.
The Government have been making a lot of fuss about local authorities implementing the law. Local authorities in my area have been implementing the law, and I support them. Nevertheless, I am extremely angry when I recognize that the Government are welching on obligations entered into many years ago. My authority has been deprived of over £1¼ million per annum in the form of Exchequer grant for houses which it has built. Young people who would previously have turned to local authorities are being driven on to the open market to buy houses at grossly inflated values. I believe that this will have the effect of causing local authorities virtually to cease building houses. This is deplorable.
I should like to know what plans there are to control the high price of land and the high cost of houses, and what plans there are to treat local authorities at least as fairly as the purchasers of £20,000 houses.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) congratulated us on becoming Socialists. Occasionally while he was speaking I almost felt like congratulating him on becoming a Conservative. In a controversial debate there seems to be some cross-fertilisation of ideas, which I welcome.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their success in reversing the downward trend of house building under the previous Government. I hope that there will be no public comment on that. The rise in land prices is being picked upon by many as a symbol of weakness and a crisis of confidence in the British economy. I think that for that reason the matter needs to be put into perspective.
Listening to some of the debate one would think that we were the only country in the world in which land prices had not risen and had not been rising steadily for a considerable time. Land is in short supply, and it will become in

even shorter supply unless we start doing something drastic with the oceans. Land price is therefore bound to be high. The general consensus is that it will become even higher. There is nothing sinister about that; it is an inevitable development of a shortage of living space compared with what has been known in the past.
The question which faces the House is what to do about it. The Labour Party has a significant gap in its motion. I was glad to notice that on this occasion the gap was filled in by the good speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) who told us what hon. Gentlemen opposite would do about the situation. He said that they would nationalise land, and he brought in a splendid reference to the Oxford Conference and the welcome which that idea was given by the sons of large farmers who thought that it would enable them to keep their farms. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he believes that he will believe anything.
The general understanding of what hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to do about the land situation is the old one. They would nationalise land, and I think that we should know what that would mean. It would mean stealing. What is the point of doing it otherwise? What is the economic advantage to the nation, to the general public or to the voters of Dundee of nationalising land if we do not obtain it substantially cheaper than we otherwise would?
Anybody can buy land at any time. The public, in the shape of the Government, public authorities and local authorities can buy land. They could buy it in the past. If they want, they can and do acquire land by compulsory purchase. Those authorities who paid any attention to future trends were as able as anybody else to buy land early and keep the rate down. What assurance do we have that a nationalisation authority would be so much more efficient and so much less keen to obtain its pound of flesh than the variety of competing and different interests which exist now? The answer is, none at all.
It has never happened yet, and to a monstrous lethargy will be added monumental inefficiency. The only advantage of the Labour Party's policy of land


nationalisation lies in taking the land at a low rate of exchange compared with what it is worth. It is a once-for-all advantage and can never be repeated, and the subsequent burden on the country will be enormous.
I turn briefly to the amendment, and particularly to its reference to the action that we have taken to stimulate all agencies in the provision of housing. I wholly support that policy, confident in the belief that when the Government speak of stimulation they do not regard that process as having stopped. It must carry on.
Coming as I do from an area of Scotland where large-scale development is in progress, I am particularly concerned whether housing will be adequate to meet the needs of incoming industries. Many of the companies coming to the north of Scotland do not regard housing as their problem. In a sense there is no reason for them to do so. But I suggest to those companies and the Government that they should do so. Some companies invest considerable sums of money in plant and machinery, which they can recover from the sale of their products or services. In the north of Scotland, in many cases, they will need a new community or a great increase in an old community in order to serve their plant and machinery. But not all these companies want to play the same part and invest the same kind of money in building that community needed to service their plant, nor to take long-term responsibility for the future of those communities once their immediate interest has gone. A caravan site is just about the limit of what they see as required provision for their workers. That is not adequate.
Will the Government consider doing more to encourage new industry coming into our part of the country to play its part in creating the communities that its activities tend to create and to put a part of the cost as a charge on its products in exactly the same way as for the amortisation of its building of the plant and machinery? The more we can do to increase resources to meet the infrastructure needs of these developments, the better.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Any debate on housing in Scotland ought always to begin with a restatement of the very different features of the housing stock that exist between Scotland and England. The latest figures, for 1971, show that in England 52 per cent. of the housing stock was owner-occupied as against 28 per cent. rented from public authorities, whereas in Scotland the figures are almost exactly reversed, with 30 per cent. owner-occupied and 52 per cent. rented from public authorities.
It is therefore obvious that in today's conditions any Government ought to encourage a growth in the private sector of housing in Scotland. But if one has, at the same time, a decline in the number of houses being built in the public sector and an increase in the rent levels, the pressure on the private sector is bound to be enormous. That is one of the signs that we have seen in recent months. But although we want to see the Government encouraging more home ownership in Scotland, and an increase in the proportion of the housing stock which is privately owned, we have also to remember that for a large section of the Scottish population the ownership of a home is well beyond their aspirations.
The Shelter Housing Aid Centre in Edinburgh has produced a report of its first year of activities. The Minister visited this centre some months ago. Its report showed that of the 595 families who went through the organisation's machinery for aid and advice, and of all the solutions it has tabulated in its report, in only one case was the purchase of a house the solution for a family.
The reason for that is that a great many families' income levels are now well below the levels at which they can even contemplate buying a house at today's prices.
The Glasgow Shelter Housing Aid Centre has broken down the family income of the people with whom it has dealt and has shown that in the first six months of its operation 52 per cent. of the families whom it was trying to assist had total family incomes—not just that of the breadwinner—of below £15 a week. Thus, to talk about the open market or
wider opportunities for choice in housing


as the amendment does, is a cruel joke, because for large sections of the population reliance will still have to be on the public sector.
My colleagues and I will support the motion, but we wonder why it refers to "increases in land prices" and then to
the cost of house building".
Under this Government, for the first time, a gulf has appeared between the cost of building houses and their price. This is one of the features of housing under this administration. The Nationwide Building Society published an interesting graph last month showing that during the period from 1965 to 1971 the cost of house building and the price of modern houses, older houses and new houses, rose at a set level. However, suddenly, in June 1971, there was a continued rise in building costs but a dramatic escalation in the price of new houses, modern houses and even older houses, and therefore a gap appeared.
The increase in house prices cannot be explained away in terms of building costs. Although costs have continued to rise there is something new operating in the market which should be identified.

Mr. Ronald Brown: It is called profit.

Mr. Steel: Therefore, because I believe that an attempt should be made to increase the supply of houses at a reasonable price, the Government should examine the operation of the different mechanisms whereby people are subsidised for living in houses. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) made several valuable points about the amount by which we subsidise, by means of the tax system, people who are buying more expensive houses. We also subsidise those living in council houses through the rent rebate scheme. The greatest contribution which could be made to encourage people to buy their own house, would be to make a grant to young married couples. If some public expenditure were to be so channelled more married couples would start on the ladder of buying a house instead of on the ladder of spending anything up to 65 years in a council house.
If the Government are looking for ways of saving money so as to introduce a measure of this kind they could make a start by abolishing, or placing a ceiling

on, the tax relief they are prepared to grant on mortgages above a certain level. There is no justification—in fact, there is the very reverse—for granting tax relief on more than one mortgage. Apart from the fiscal effect, the social effect of second-house ownership is very bad.
In 1972 we saw the greatest percentage increase in house prices since the Second World War. According to the report of one of the leading chartered surveyors and estate agents in Scotland for last year—
The £10,000 modern semi-detached house is now a reality in Central Scotland, and even tenement houses in desirable locations have been making between £8,000 and £10,000.
This report has something more valuable and specific to say about land prices.
Referring to the supply of land the report says:
The supply can only be increased if builders are prepared to step up their production and have enough land to do so, and this is a crucial point in Scotland where it is not so much a case of there being no land for building but that much of the best undeveloped residential building land is held in the land banks of relatively few developers".
The report goes on to indicate that on the rare occasions when prime sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow have come on the market they have realised well over £30,000 an acre for low density schemes and up to double that where densities of 25 houses per acre were possible. If we are to release some of the land now being hoarded for later development direct action by the Government will be necessary.
My party has long advocated that the rating of site values would be beneficial to the community. There is no argument about that. If a site is undeveloped and hoarded for a developer's own purposes, site value rating would have a dramatic effect in encouraging him to develop it. Nor would I rule out municipalisation of building land in key centres as a way of helping the private and public housing markets in Scotland.
Finally, I want to deal with a problem that has been discussed by one or two hon. Members—the new trend in the more rural areas of Scotland to purchase a second house as a holiday home. It is a growing problem in the Highlands and Islands and certainly in the Borders, and


I have been considering what the Government could and should do. I have already suggested that tax relief should not be available on second mortgages. At any time—for instance during the Budget statement—the Government could announce the removal of this tax concession. That would help.
But there are two other possibilities. First, it is wrong that public authorities such as British Railways or the Forestry Commission, which are often in a position to dispose of unwanted properties which they own on behalf of the people—sometimes cottages and sometimes larger houses—should be encouraged to go for the highest market value regardless of social consequences. In my constituency there have been instances of properties being sold as holiday homes over the heads of local people who have wanted to buy them. The prices paid have been three or four times the district valuer's valuation—three or four times the value at which the public authorities could have offered them to local authorities.

Mr. Galbraith: May that not be due to the difficulty of getting planning permission to build a house in the country?

Mr. Steel: No, I do not think that it is. I am talking about properties that are often sold to people from London and other parts of urban England. The properties fall into two categories. There are, first, small cottages which are used for weekends and holidays, some of which are being sold to people in central Scotland—so that this is not purely an England-Scotland issue—instead of being occupied by ordinary working families, who would like to buy such cottages as a permanent home. Secondly, there are the larger houses—the farm houses, and so on, from farms that the Forestry Commission has bought and that are sold to people of rather more substantial means who come from the cities and towns and who want them as small country estates.
In any case, in the past two or three years we have seen the development of this new phenomenon. It is a matter for the Treasury, which should instruct public authorities to have regard to the social consequences of their actions when selling property.
There is one other possible solution. It is for the Government to introduce a system of treble rating of domestic houses that are used not as ordinary residences but as second houses. If such houses are bought by people who make no contribution to the life of the community, there is a strong case for making such people pay a substantial financial contribution to the local community.

Mr. John Brewis: I am a little behind with my intervention now, but this is the point which I wished to put: if a local authority insists on buying a house using the district valuer's assessment, should it not be bound also to use the district valuer's assessment when it wants to sell, instead of getting a quite exorbitant price?

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The properties of which I am speaking were in many cases bought by the public authority from private individuals in the first place. One has to go back a little in history, but that was often so. When a public authority purchases, the district valuer's price is used for negotiation, but when the authority sells the sky is the limit in open market value. There is a serious injustice here which the Government ought to put right.
In the last two or three years, the business of property and land in Scotland has become something of a financial racket. It seems that in our society a man who is rich now gets on very nicely but a poor man often finds his aspirations stifled. No Government ought to be content with that sort of society.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made a constructive speech, and I agree when he says that we must find a way of helping young married couples. I should favour an examination of his suggestion that we take something off tax relief for people at the top. I think that that would be an equitable way to go about it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will have noted the suggestion.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), whose speech also I enjoyed,


commented on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act. Obviously, I do not accept all he said about that Act, and I think it important to see in proper perspective what my right hon. and hon. Friends are trying to do for housing in Scotland through all agencies and all the ways to stimulate housing development.
One should not ignore what the Government are trying to do through the Act, and what they have succeeded in doing. When we came to power in 1970, the housing situation in Scotland had gone rotten. The process had gone on over many years. I do not blame any individual Government for it, but, as the House knows, we had the worst overcrowding in the United Kingdom, the worst slums, and the worst record of owner-occupation in the United Kingdom. Scotland has only about half the amount of owner-occupation to be found in England and Wales—about 27 per cent. as compared with 51 per cent. Also, we had the worst and most ludicrous level of rents in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that all these factors are unconnected, and it was one of the principal objects of the Act to tackle them.
That is the background of our housing policy, and I am sorry that the attitude of the Clydebank councillors should seem to symbolise the worst and most reactionary attitude of Scottish housing authorities, not only defying the law, which in itself is thoroughly reprehensible, but defying it in such a way as to ensure that their own people have a worse deal than they would have under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Ronald Brown: And that is bad enough.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman did not have to sit through the many sittings of the Scottish Committee on that Bill. As an English Member, he is always welcome to our debates, so long as he does not interrupt too much.
I shall not go through all the virtues of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Virtues? It would not take long.

Mr. Sproat: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would take quite a long time

to detail them. For the first time, we have a rent rebate scheme on a national scale. For the first time, we have a national scheme which ensures that many thousands of people in Scotland will be living rent-free. I think that there are 2,000 people in Edinburgh alone who will now live rent-free as a result of the Act.
For the first time, we shall have rent allowances to tenants in furnished and unfurnished private accommodation. This is a great advance. The Opposition have never satisfactorily explained how they could allow rents to go up in the private sector, as they did, without bringing in rent allowances so as to protect those tenants in the private sector who could not afford the rents which they were allowing to rise.
In that context, it is worth mentioning also how we are improving the housing stock in Scotland by seeing for the first time that landlords in these circumstances receive a fair rent which they may plough back into the accommodation, while at the same time ensuring that those tenants who cannot afford it are subsidised by those who can. It seems that this is as equitable a situation as we can hope to achieve in the rather clumsy and broad legislation that we have to pass.
It is also worth mentioning the house improvement grants, which have been a tremendous success in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen where the demand far outran the council's willingness or the ability of local builders to satisfy demand. I was very sorry that in Aberdeen in particular, possibly through prejudice and dogma—and no doubt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) may take this up later—the local council was not keen to use improvement grants, so that an appalling situation arose in which people were genuinely willing to improve their property but were unable to take advantage of the provisions the Government had made for them to do so. I congratulate the Government on the vigorous, far-reaching and comprehensive measures they are taking to stimulate private sector building and, indeed, building at almost every level in Scotland.
As for the situation in Aberdeen, there is no doubt that what one might call the reverse side of the oil boom has shown itself, amid all the prosperity which oil


has already brought to Aberdeen and will bring increasingly. In an earlier debate I mentioned that the figure was £1 million per rig per year coming into the area. But the reverse side has been a tremendous rise in house prices in Aberdeen and in the North-East. Answering a Question the other day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the average house price increase in Scotland since June 1970 was 35 per cent. My right hon. Friend will be lucky to find a house or tenement which has not increased by more than 35 per cent. in the past two years in Aberdeen. Estimates from reputable bodies in the area show that executive housing, which we shall need if we are to attract the sort of oil executives that we must attract to maximise developments in the area, has gone up in price by as much as 100 per cent. in the last year alone. That is quite out of the ordinary and something which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary might wish to look at most carefully.
This situation has not been caused only by the oil boom, although that was the main reason for it. Prices have always been high in Aberdeen. They have always been much higher in Scotland because in many cases costs have been traditionally higher than in England and Wales and the scarcity of owner-occupied houses has pushed up the prices in Aberdeen, as elsewhere, as has the Government's correct stimulus to owner-occupation. Another factor has been that Aberdeen Corporation over the years has bought up a tremendous amount of land within the city boundaries on which to build municipal housing so that there is now no room on which to build many private houses, short of destroying slum tenements in the centre of the city. That situation has aggravated the scarcity, and the situation has been aggravated further by the North Sea oil boom.
It is no use denying—and I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not wish to do so—that in Aberdeen prices have risen at a staggering rate. They have now reached a staggering level and every indication is that they will continue rising. We must look at ways in which the trend can be halted. I hope that the Government will look urgently and seriously at the situation and I hope particularly that the Government will encourage and enable local authorities to release more

land in the North-East if we are to take the maximum advantage of the oil opportunities.
Secondly, the Government must encourage local councils to sell off council houses at the pre-emption rate. It is a wonderful opportunity to buy good houses at 20 per cent. less than market rate in many cases.
Thirdly, the Government must do something to help the young married couples in particular, who are the hardest hit by the present situation. The country can make few better investments than to see young married couples happily settled in their own homes.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I was thankful to hear the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) say that the Labour Party intends when it regains power, which I hope will be soon, to nationalise the land. I hope that the basis of compensation will be the use value, the value on the valuation roll, and not the development value, as is now paid. I recall the words of the statesman who said not so long ago that God gave the land to the people. The sooner the land is given back to the people, the better it will be for the country.
My second point concerns the escalation of land values in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was asked tonight what he would do to try to stop the inflation of land prices. A practical method has been put to me by the town council of the royal burgh of Irvine. In 1958 the council bought about 5½ acres of land at a total cost of £1,050, and in 1960 it bought 14½ adjoining acres at a total cost of £1,500. That made the cost between £100 and £200 an acre.
The town council just under a year ago put up nine plots of land for sale to people who wished to build their own houses. It stated that the cost would be about £700 an acre and asked people to apply to have their name put on a reserve list. Because of difficulties outwith the control of the town council, the negotiations were not then completed. Recently, the council asked the district valuer to place a new value on the nine plots, and he valued seven of them, each of which


was 0·15 of an acre, at £1,300 each, plus feu duty. The remaining two, of 0·19 of an acre, he valued at £1,700 each. That represents a value of about £10,000 an acre for land that the council bought in 1958 and 1960 for between £100 and £200 an acre.
The town council, which is not Labour-controlled, did not see why it should rob the people who had applied less than a year ago to have their name placed on the reserve list. It threw the ball back into the Secretary of State's court, asking him for permission to sell the plots at the original value. We are still waiting in Irvine for an answer, but that is nothing new in Scotland, because everyone is waiting for an answer from the Secretary of State. I should like the Under-Secretary to give us that answer tonight. Is Irvine Town Council to be allowed to carry out Government policy? Is it to be allowed not to join in the inflationary spiral, but to try to break it in regard to land prices in the Irvine area?
My next point also concerns the Irvine area and the Irvine Development Corporation which, because we have been designated a new town, has complete control over planning and most of the land within the area. Irvine Development Corporation, which is a public body—I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will note that—put up to feu 28 plots of land in Whitehirst Park, Kilwinning at a price of £1,600 a plot. In January 1973, when people applied for the plots, it sent the following letter, the relevant part of which says:
In the event that more than one application is received for a particular plot then those applicants will be asked to offer by tender a price in excess of the £1,600 stated in the particulars.
As there was a great demand for the 28 plots, Irvine Development Corporation said, "We will have an Indian market. We will put it up to the highest bidder". I heard last weekend that the highest bidder offered £2,500. That is approximately £10,000 to £11,000 an acre for land that was valued not so long ago at £100 or £200 an acre.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State, as I have asked his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to carry out Government policy. I have asked the Chancellor to do so not only on wages but on land prices. I have received

no reply from the Chancellor. He has told me that he will see about it in the Budget. We now get that answer from every Minister. However, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to take action regarding Irvine Development Corporation. If land is valued by a district valuer at £1,600 an acre, the Corporation should not be allowed to put it up for auction and to try to get people to quote higher prices than they can afford. If £1,600 is the value of the plot, the plot should be sold at that price. If there are more applicants than plots, the best way is to ballot for them. Surely that is a sensible approach. I suggest to the hon. Member for Galloway that that is a method by which to break the inflationary spiral. That would be a positive action on the Government's party to try to stop this sort of thing.
I know before the Under-Secretary of State answers that he will say that he has no control over Irvine Development Corporation. Unfortunately it seems that very few people have control over the corporation.
It is customary when a Minister visits an hon. Member's constituency to notify him that he is making the visit, but the last time the hon. Gentleman visited the Irvine area he did not notify me. Perhaps he did not do so because he is afraid to come to the area. Every Minister who comes to the Irvine area and notifies us knows that we shall arrange for a large demonstration to point out to him the feelings of the people in the area. When the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, Lord Polworth, opened a new road last week, he met 500 construction workers. He told them about the Government's prices and incomes policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be courteous enough to tell us, the Irvine Town Council and the Irvine Development Corporation that the Government will take action on the price of land in the Irvine area.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In the 32 months in which I have been in this House I have seen some very curious situations, but I have never known the Government not to put up an opening speaker on a debate of this kind. It is scandalous that no Minister has spoken. It is scandalous that while we


are having this debate there should be a complete lack of knowledge about the Government's intentions, which we should have known from the beginning of the debate.
We are holding the debate against the background of escalating prices, both of land and of housing. The trouble with statistics is that they often mask quite remarkably what is happening. If we believe them, the average price of a new house since June 1970 has risen from £5,201 to £7,361, a rise of £2,160 or 42 per cent. The average increase in the cost of a modern existing house has risen from £5,303 to £7,500, or an increase of 43 per cent. Such figures do not explain what has happened in very recent times, but they are bad enough.
Let us look at the situation of people wanting to buy their own homes. If the average price of the house was £5,000, as it was in June 1970, they had to find a deposit of £500 and a monthly repayment, before tax relief, of £36·65. That again is bad enough, but what were we told by the then Opposition before the 1970 election? They produced a document called
Tomorrow's Scotland—Better with the Conservatives".
In the section on housing the manifesto said:
The difficulties of young people raising money for a deposit to buy a house are a barrier on the road to wider home ownership.
That is interesting because in December 1972 the deposit on a house was £700—an increase of £200. In addition, a young couple now have to find £54 a month for mortgage repayments—an increase of £4 a week at 8½ per cent. on a 90 per cent. mortgage. That is
Tomorrow's Scotland—Better with the Conservatives",
representing an increase in deposit and an increase on the monthly repayments.
Even that does not tell the full story of what has been happening recently. It has been noted that builders are having such a good time that they are reluctant to quote the price of a house until it is finished. We have gazumping not in the traditional fashion but in a different way. Builders will not tell prospective customers how much a house will cost until it is built. The reason for this is that some people have been buying a

house at a fixed price from the builder, living in it for a couple of months and then selling it again at an exorbitant profit. Builders say, "That is not good enough. We have to have our pound of flesh." So they are not telling customers what they will have to pay. Instead they wait to see what the market will bear when the selling comes around, and they take as much as they can.
The story of what is happening with new houses is repeated in many ways in a worse form with older houses. On 13th December 1972, The Scotsman reported that in Edinburgh
A stone-built semi-detached house, with no garage, in a good residential area of Edinburgh which cost £7,800 four years ago was sold for £14,500—an appreciation of 85 per cent.
A modern terraced house in a fashionable part of Edinburgh was recently sold for a little over £30,000, representing an 85 per cent. increase over two and a half years.
What about Aberdeen? Aberdeen, as The Scotsman also reported, has its own problems. The newspaper reported in August 1972:
Soaring house prices provide the dominating topic of conversation in Aberdeen today.
In pubs and clubs and over tea all the talk is about small bungalows built prewar for £700 selling for £10.000, and of three-roomed flats in 70-year-old tenements with a shared stair-head toilet going for £4,000. If they have a bathroom that adds £1,000 to the cost.
Just over £2,000 a room has become a useful guide to house prices.
An estate agent said the rate of increase…shot up over the past 12 months and the graph showed no sign of flattening out. By this time next year"—
that means August 1973—
…sale could be showing a further increase of £2,000.
Is it not a pretty poor outlook for the young married couples in Scotland trying to begin a decent life? Is it not a poor outlook for those who have no other opportunity, who have not been able to get council houses and who are scrambling around in the market trying to find a house to buy?
One is bound to ask, why is there this phenomenal growth in the cost of housing. We know that it is partly due to the growth in demand. This in itself is strange because traditionally in Scotland we are not a house-owning country. Many hon. Members have referred to the


fact that in Scotland only 30 per cent. of our houses are in owner-occupation as against a figure of 50 per cent. for England and Wales. Traditionally we have a low rate of home ownership. A reason was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). It is that the Government are forcing rent increases upon the local authority tenants which is making them look towards the housing market.
The Government are trying to force people into the housing market. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) repeated a point he made in Committee, namely, that one of the worst things about the Scottish housing position is that we have too low an owner-occupation rate. The whole of the Government's policies have been geared towards forcing people into the private market. The housing-building figures show this to be true. Although there was an increase in the private sector in 1970—from 8,220 to 11,835—the total number of houses completed in Scotland has fallen by 15,000. If we look at the figures produced by the tinder-Secretary dealing with future trends it will be seen that, apart from the suddent peak because of a once-and-for-all subsidy, the trend is downwards.
This is what the Government want. They want to force people on to the market. They need not think that by doing that the cost of local authority housing will in any way be reduced. Local authority housing is increasing in price. A house which in 1971 cost £3,126 now costs £5,479. It is estimated that an ordinary traditional three-bedroomed house shows a 73 per cent. increase in building costs. This increase has been put down, among other things, to the cost of land. The Government have to decide what to do about this. Those who are forced into the market cannot be expected to face these costs. By their silence the Government are condemned out of their own mouths. They are not interested in what is happening.
All this is bad enough but there is worse when we come to the issue of land. In many ways this dominates life in Scotland. From mid-1971 to mid-1972 the price of a plot of urban building land increased by 60 per cent. Many hon. Members have mentioned this increase.

A central site in Edinburgh sold at over £40,000 an acre. There were examples given in Edinburgh and Glasgow where low-density housing land costs £30,000 an acre but double that where the density is 25 houses an acre or more.
There is a consistent forcing up of land prices. Aberdeen provides an interesting example. About 4½ years ago Aberdeen Town Council was briefly under the control of a Conservative Council. It sold 20 acres of prime land near the centre of Aberdeen, in the centre of a desirable residential area, for £90,500. That was just over £4,500 an acre. At the end of last year, at Westhills scheme outside the city, land sold for over £20,000 an acre—nearly five times the price four-and-a-half years ago. There has been a tremendous increase in the price of land.
Last Wednesday, the Under-Secretary tried to argue that the cost of land was not a factor in house prices. But we glean these facts from the Press. There are no comprehensive statistics for Scotland. As long ago as 1970, a report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee drew attention to the fact that there were difficulties in finding out the facts about the cost of land. We have shown clearly this evening that the cost of house building land is increasing tremendously.
If there is a lack of knowledge about the cost of the land, there is an even greater lack of knowledge about who owns it. I was amazed that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) should have said that the Labour Party's policy of public ownership meant stealing the land. I had to ask my hon. Friends whether that was what he was saying. He wants to read "Our Noble Families", by the late Tom Johnson. There he will find how the land was obtained by the landowners—by plunder, by the might of the barons of yesteryear.
Even now, 100 years after the land survey, we cannot find out exactly who owns the land. There have been valiant attempts to find out the facts. I would refer hon. Members to a document entitled "Acreocracy" produced by Perth Fabians, which showed what is happening, although even there they had to go to tremendous lengths to get the information because it is kept secret. When it comes to secrecy, the Mafia


could learn a few lessons from the Scottish landowners.
What we need above all is, first, a land register, so that we may know who owns the land. Once we have done that, we can take the land into the ownership of the people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell said that nationalisation is not necessarily the answer to every problem. But I am convinced, and I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree, that the way to protect the people of Scotland is by nationalising the land. Unless we do this, we shall continue the problem of land and house prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked one or two questions about housing costs. The pity of it is that the Under-Secretary will now have the last word and will presumably find it difficult to be challenged. Nevertheless, these questions have to be asked.
In the "House Builder" of February 1973, under the heading "A war on" in the editor's column, referring to a war on prices, we are told that the freeze does not affect house prices and that, according to the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, nor will phase 2. It is still legal, according to this article—we are waiting for this to be denied—to charge more for a later phase of a new estate than for an early one. It is still legal to use a rise-and-fall clause to offset rises in the cost of labour and materials:
It is even legal—though utterly deplorable—to gazump, ie, to increase the cost of a house after it has been offered to a prospective purchaser, subject to contract.
We in Scotland are lucky in that regard. Once a contract has been settled that price is fixed.
But I view with grave misgivings the idea in a recent Law Journal that, once all the sealed tenders have come in, the lawyers should sit around and try to bargain. This is bringing back gazumping in a new form. If nothing else, I hope that the Government will tell us that that will not be allowed.
The Government have told us today nothing in answer to our case. Some hon. Members opposite, perhaps the Minister, may gather comfort from the fact that one or two commentators seem to think

that the rate of increase in prices has levelled off, that we have reached a peak and that the house-building market has settled. That may be one aspect of the matter, but it is expected that the position may get worse, bad though it is now. The Economist intelligence unit has said that by April this year it expects the rate of house prices to resume rising. So the position now is far from being the worse. We shall face the likelihood that house prices will constantly increase.
The House-Builder is more pessimistic than I am in relation to what the Government are going to do. Also in the February issue a man called Michael Becket, who is a financial staff writer for the Daily Telegraph, says:
Sooner or later, Government is going to act on the price of private housing—it is just a matter of time before it generates the political courage and then decides on what the action ought to be.
All I can say is that I wish I had as much confidence. I have certainly no confidence that this Government will do anything to check the rise in house prices.
During this debate the Government, and the back benchers behind them, have not sought to defend the rise in land and house prices. This is understandable. The facts are incontrovertible. They cannot be challenged, but the Government have not condemned the rise in prices. Their amendment seeks to divert the House from the question at issue. That also is understandable because the core of Conservative ethics is maximisation of profit. At every stage, ever since the Conservatives became the Government, they have directed their policies to that end. The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act has been used in more ways than one to see that private owners can make the best they can out of the nation's resources. For instance, the Government slipped through a schedule to the Act relieving those who get grants for improving houses from having to repay them if they sell within three years. That may be legal but, in my view, it is morally fraudulent conversion, leading to the plunder of the public purse.
That is one simple reason. The Government think of housing as a commodity to be sold like striped toothpaste or fancy detergents at the best prices for the highest gain. This is what divides us in the House and in the country. They put


profit first and people second. We believe that housing is a social service, and that young people have a right to start married life in decent standards of housing. It was very revealing that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, in an interview he gave recently to the Aberdeen Evening Express, said,
High prices are part of the price of progress. They simply have to be accepted.
There is not much compassion there for the young married couple. The Government have done nothing for the young married couple starting off in life and have been obsessed with raising house rents to the exclusion of all other considerations.
It is for all these reasons that I ask the House to reject the amendment and to carry the motion.

9.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I would first of all like to welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) to their Front Bench. I think this is the first time they have participated from there, at any rate in a major debate. I congratulate them on being on the Opposition Front Bench and welcome them there. I hope to see them in that position for a long time to come. They will entertain us very much from there.
There is no gratitude in this life, is there? When I heard what were to be the subjects of today's debates I discussed with my right hon. Friend the best way to handle them. I calculated that according to the ordinary course of events, we should have eight Front Bench speakers in the debates, and that, if that were allowed to happen everyone would be complaining about it and saying that the debates were taken up with Front Bench speeches. I thought I would try to make it a little easier by not having two Government speakers in this debate, and I have been castigated by the Opposition for doing so. I am sorry about that, but I still consider that it was right, and I have even had denied to me five minutes of the meagre time I asked for. However, I will do my best to do justice to the points which have been put to me.
I was delighted to see the two hon. Gentlemen, and surprised that two such

young hon. Gentlemen should produce so much old-fashioned ideology. History repeats itself. The old shibboleths of the Labour Party are coming to the fore with the new generation, and that reassures us.
The cardinal requirement in meeting the housing needs of Scotland is that housing policy should be tackled on a comprehensive basis over all the different types of housing provision. It is no longer sufficient for us to concentrate on any one form of housing provision. It is no use putting everything into the building of houses for owner occupation, into improvement or into building council houses. The only way in which we can provide the sort of houses that people increasingly want to live in is for the Government to have a comprehensive approach to all the various types of housing.
That is why I have spent a lot of time, with the assistance of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee—of which I am Chairman—tackling this side of housing problems in the past two-and-a-half years. A report called "Planning for Housing Needs", commissioned by the committee and published last year, recommended that local authorities should increasingly look beyond their own future housing programmes to the full exercise of their total housing powers and duties based on a comprehensive assessment of housing needs in the public and the private sectors. I have invited local authorities to review their housing programmes in the light of the report's recommendations.
At its meeting last month the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee decided that a demonstration project should be carried out to study the housing needs of a selected area, adopting the guidelines and the methodology recommended in the report I have mentioned. Arrangements are being made for the local authority associations to be consulted about this proposed study. It is hoped that the results obtained will be of practical benefit to the local authorities directly concerned and will show the way to tackle, throughout Scotland, the task of assessing the housing needs and the housing programmes required to meet the needs of each area.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Mr. J. B. Cullingworth, the


Director of the Planning Exchange, who was chairman of the working group which produced last year's report, has accepted the invitation of my right hon. Friend to be chairman of the advisory committee which will be associated with the forthcoming demonstration project. All those who are involved in housing and the agencies which work in housing will welcome this renewed dedication to the right principle for modern housing, which is a comprehensive approach to needs in general.
The motion gives me the greatest concern. I have felt it most important to make sure that we do everything we can to encourage home ownership in Scotland, first, for social reasons. Every survey on this subject indicates that a large proportion of people, particularly young people, wish to own their own homes. Were the motion to be justified I should be very concerned. It is equally important that we should have more owner-occupied housing in Scotland from the industrial point of view. In attracting new industry, it is necessary to be able to point to a stock of available housing for owner-occupation. At present there is an insufficient supply for our industrial needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), in a thoughtful speech, said that the rise in house prices of the last few years has been closely associated with the problem of inflation generally. It is unrealistic to think that one can look at one side of the problem without looking at the other. I am not saying that all this rise is due to the inflationary problem, but if the Opposition are to show their concern about rising house prices for young couples they must throw their weight behind the Government's effort to get inflation under control. It will not do for them to sit back and try to make political capital out of it without throwing their full weight behind this battle which most people support most warmly.

Mr. James Sillars: Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Younger: I must pursue my argument. In the context of the motion there has been a substantial rise in house and land prices in the last few years. I do not intend to dwell on that fact,

because it is known by everybody. I want to go into some of the reasons for it and to give some of the facts and figures behind it. First, land prices, as has been pointed out, have been rising, partly because of inflation and partly because of demand. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East produced some examples. It is always possible to produce one or two classic extreme examples in any country at any time.

Mr. Strang: One has to go to the average.

Mr. Younger: Of course, in the centre of any city where there is a tremendous demand for land, it is possible to point to large figures of escalating costs of land or houses. That is not in dispute. But, as I think I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East say a moment ago, one has to go to the average. It is right to record extreme cases, but that is not the main point of the story. We should not get carried away about that.
Despite the fact that land prices have risen, it does not appear that the proportion of the cost of a new house accounted for by land cost has increased. That does not make it any more palatable, but it focuses our attention on the price generally, not on the price of land in particular.
According to the Nationwide surveys, in 1971 the cost of land in the proportion of a new house was about 11·7 per cent. This year it is 11·4 per cent. So the message is not that we forget that the price of land has risen, but that the real factor is the price of the house as a whole, and not the price of the land in particular. Therefore, I want to concentrate on looking at the price of the house as a whole.
The problem of land is very much concerned with the availability and provision of land. It is also a problem of attitudes. I think that it will be generally agreed on both sides of the House that for some years too many people have been reluctant to zone land for private development in sufficient quantities for the needs.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

Mr. Younger: No, I will not give way. I have been trying to encourage local planning authorities to zone more


land for private housing and to make sure it is available. There is not a general shortage—

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Edinburgh, for example, there is sufficient land to build 7,000 houses already zoned and in private ownership for house building, yet only 400 houses a year are being built? How can this be explained in terms of what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mr. Younger: I was at fault in giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I was going on to say that there is not a general shortage of land available for private housing in Scotland, but it is desirable that local authorities should make still more land available. The only way to bring down prices is to make more land available and to get more houses built. The demand factor will not then put up prices at the same rate.
I should like to get down to some of the facts about house prices. First, is the average price of a new house in Scotland higher or lower than in other parts of the country? In 1969 the price was higher in Scotland than in other parts of the country. The average price of a new house in Scotland in 1969 was £4,918—higher than the average price of a new house in England or Wales by about £150. By 1972, the average house south of the Border cost £450 more than a Scottish house, the Scottish average being £6,596.
For all houses taken together—that is, both old and new—the average price in Scotland in 1972 was £6,232, which was more than £1,200 less than in England and Wales, where the average price was £7,470.
Taking percentage increases, we find that new house prices in Scotland increased by 24 per cent. between the second half of 1970 and the second half of 1972. That was less than half the increase for England and Wales, which was 49 per cent. The annual increase for 1972 was 15 per cent. in Scotland compared with 32 per cent. in England and Wales.
Those facts demonstrate not that we have a situation with which we are satisfied but that it is not true to say that we have a worse situation than one finds in the rest of Britain. What I should like to make clear is that Scotland is a good

place for people to consider when they think about owning their own homes. It is a place where it is advantageous for people to own their homes, and we should encourage them as much as we can to do so.
Another way of looking at this is to compare the rise in house prices with the rise in average earnings, because if house prices go up someone buying a house finds it very much more difficult to do so if average earnings have not risen also. But if house prices go up and if earnings go up by the same amount then, relatively, the position is unaltered.
It is not the case that it is more difficult today than it was two years ago for a working man in Scotland to buy a house. Between 1970 and 1972, average earnings for manual workers in Scotland increased by about 30 per cent., while house prices increased by very much the same amount—marginally under 30 per cent. Average wages increased from £27·04 in 1970 to more than £35 in 1972. Between 1971 and 1972 wages increased by 17 per cent., while house prices increased by 15 per cent. Those are the figures given by the Building Societies Association.
The unprecedented increase in new private house building in Scotland since 1970 must be due in part at least to the great demand that has been created by those figures. If hon. Gentlemen opposite visit any house builder in Scotland they will find on his wall lists of people wanting to buy houses, and this in spite of the fact that house building is at an all time record level. It is not the case, in spite of all the difficulties that we have, that it is relatively more difficult today to buy a house than it was two years ago.
Nor is it the case that young couples are finding it more difficult to buy houses. In 1968—according to building societies' surveys—one-third of all mortgages were granted to borrowers under 26. The latest figure is similar.

Mr. Ross: For new houses?

Mr. Younger: All mortgages.

Mr. Ross: The point is that many young couples buy unsatisfactory houses. They leave homes in which they have been brought up which are far better than those which they are forced to buy—


tenement flats, and so on. I wish the hon. Gentleman would tell us how many mortgages are for that kind of property.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that people buy all sorts of houses. People who buy houses which they do not really like do so quite often with the object—which they achieve—of moving to a better house as they get on in life. That is the normal progression.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove) rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but I do not have sufficient time to give way.

Mr. Miller: It is on this point.

Mr. Younger: I am sure it is, but I must continue with my speech. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman.
Is it the case that a mortgage relative to income is more difficult to afford to-day than it was two years ago? The figures provided by the building societies and the methods by which they calculate them are interesting.
As I have said, the average price for a house in Scotland is about £6,500. But houses are being advertised for sale in several large towns at present at about £5,500. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"]. For instance, Airdrie, Larkhall and Dalry. They are two-bedroomed bungalows and semi-detached houses. I have been pretty fair with my information, and perhaps the House will now listen to the rest of it.
The average wage-earner today is earn-about £35 a week in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Is that take-home pay?

Mr. Younger: Not the net figure, no. Perhaps the mathematics master will leave me for a moment. By the normal calculations of the building societies, the borrowing power of a person earning £35 a week is about £5,450, and the mortgage repayment, allowing for tax relief or mortgage option, is £33 a month. This is a perfectly normal business transaction, and hon. Members must have heard it hundreds of times in their surgeries. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable or, indeed, something which produces hardship, as is stated in the motion.
If we go up a little further, to those earning £40 a week—a little above the average wage, but by no means a princely salary—the borrowing power at present would be about £6,250, which is very near the average price of a house in Scotland. The mortgage repayment, under the option mortgage scheme, would be about £38 per month.
I am not pretending that there is no cause for concern about rising house prices, because there is. But it is complete nonsense to try to give the impression to people in Scotland that they should not be trying to own their own homes because they could not afford it. It is not so. If that were so, I should be more concerned about it than anyone else. The Labour Party must come to terms about that.
I have been asked a number of very important questions and I shall do my best to answer some of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East asked several very important questions about empty houses. The situation regarding empty council houses is a very patchy one. In some parts of some cities there is a considerable number lying empty. In other parts of the country there are still long waiting lists. It is no use anyone having the idea that because there are some empty council houses there are empty council houses everywhere. That is why we believe that we must concentrate our housing effort on those areas where there is still a crying need for it. It is no use having a blanket approach to large areas as a whole when we do not look at individual areas properly. As for the empty houses, I urge local authorities as often as possible to try to seek new methods of getting tenants wherever possible or ways of making use of these houses.
My hon. Friend also asked about high-rise flats. I would not want to pre-empt the consideration we are giving to the Select Committee's report, but it is generally agreed now that the role of high-rise flats went a little too far in previous years. I think that both sides of the House would agree that there is a need for them in some places but, generally, the needs of families and the desires of most of our cities and towns are for a more traditional type of housing. That is what will increasingly come to be built.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), my


hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North raised the particular problems of the North-East around Aberdeen. I am carefully watching the situation qua house prices in the North-East of Scotland. This question is causing considerable concern. It is due principally, though not entirely, to the very success the North-East of Scotland is having in its exploitation of North Sea oil. This is a classic example of boom conditions appearing and activity all over the place, with increasing demand forcing up prices.
The main thing one can do in any area to mitigate the effect of demand causing high prices is to build many more houses. Unless we can manage to maintain the current boom of building for owner occupation, the demand versus supply imbalance will become even more marked. This is why I am glad the building industry is going ahead and is optimistic about the future. It has done a marvellous job in managing to produce record figures in the last two years. In 1972 it managed to produce record figures in spite of a very long and difficult building strike lasting six weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South asked for action to help combat soaring prices and for the release of more land. I have said that we are doing all we can to encourage councils to zone more land for private development, although it does not appear at present that there is a real shortage of land for private building.
My hon. Friend mentioned also the sale of council houses. One way of helping to ease the pressure for owner occupation would be for councils to allow the sale of houses to sitting tenants who wish to buy them, thereby helping to create a market for houses, which will do much to lower the price level and benefit many would-be occupiers. This would apply particularly to councils in the North-East where there is great pressure.
There has been much mention also of the question of the price of private houses. There was a marvellous speech, which I thought I remembered, from the

hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). We heard the speech several times during our debates on the Housing Finance Act. I always enjoy the speech and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep on making it. I will not go into all the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the Housing Finance Act. I will say only one thing about it in the context of this debate. The hon. Gentleman entertained me greatly by saying, very honestly, in a very honest speech, "Do not ask me how exactly I propose to do it". That could well be the motto for the Opposition tonight. They have succeeded in mentioning many statistics about house prices, but we have not had any concrete example of what they would do to put the matter right.

I am not quite right. The Opposition have produced a suggestion, namely, that they want to nationalise all the land in Scotland. If their message at the end of this debate is that all that they can think of to put the matter right is to nationalise all the land in Scotland, that is a clarion call that the prospective and present house owners in Scotland will find a pretty damp squib.

The motion has been tabled by some bright spark in the back regions of the Opposition Whips' office, no doubt, with perhaps other motives than purely intellectual ones in looking at Scotland's housing problem. The Opposition have failed to make a case for any lack of action in housing on the Government's part. They have served only to highlight the fact that we are for the first time looking at housing in a comprehensive way, taking in all agencies.

I do not know who devised the motion, but I am sure that the House will take the advice of all who have spoken from this side, in spite of all the abstentions on the other side tonight, and vote down the motion with the contempt that it deserves.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 230.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Humphrey
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Money, Ernle


Bell, Ronald
Grieve,Percy
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Orr Capt. L. P. S.



Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, Sir John


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Lord
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dixon, Piers
Lament, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan.Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trew, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher







Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Vickers, Dame Joan
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Younger, Hn. George


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry



Walder, David (Clilheroe)
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Walker, Rt. Hn. peter (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Walters, Dennis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mikardo, Ian


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Golding, John
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward


Atkinson, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Beaney, Alan
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Halloran, Michael


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northtfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds. S.)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones,Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Steel, David


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael







Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William



Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr James Hamilton


Wells, William (Walsall. N.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 230.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Astor, John
Fidler, Michael
Kinsey, J. R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kitson, Timothy


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Lord


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fortescue, Tim
Lamont, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Foster, Sir John
Lane, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Bitten, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Luce, R. N.




McAdden, Sir Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Glimour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Goodharl, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
McMaster, Stanley


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer. J. Selwyn
Mather, Carol


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Mudd, David


Cordle, John
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)
Murton, Oscar


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smlth,Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, MaJ. -Gen. Jack
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dixon, Piers
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Parkinson, Cecil


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jessel, Toby
Peel, Sir John


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliot. Capt Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton




Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Simeons, Charles
Tugendhal, Christopher


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Smith, Dudley (W wick &amp; L' mington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Soref, Harold
Vickers, Dame Joan


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. peter (Worcester)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Redmond, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walters, Dennis


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Sutcliffe, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Rost, Peter
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Shersby, Michael
Trew, Peter
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, w.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Tom
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
English, Michael
Kaufman, Geralo


Baxter, William
Evans, Fred
Kelley, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'hsm,Ladywood)
Kinnock, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lambie, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamborn, Harry


Booth, Albert
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Forrester, John
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Golding, John
Loughlin, Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfleid)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Maciennan, Robert


Conbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)




Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hilton, W. S.
Marks, Kenneth


Cronin, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Marquand, David


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horam, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)



Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Janner, Greville
Milne, Edward


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Molloy, William


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Driberg, Tom
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick







Oakes, Gordon
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Ogden, Eric
Ropor, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiilery)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Oram, Bert
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Orbach, Maurice
Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright, Edwin


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Padley, Walter
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wailace, George


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Weitzman, David


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurie




Peart Rt. Hn. Fred
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pendrv Tom
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Perry, Erneast G.
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Probert, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Steel, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Michael Cocks


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to stimulate

action by all agencies to meet outstanding housing needs and to improve housing conditions in Scotland; and acknowledges that, as a result, the demand for wider oportunities for choice in housing is now being fully recognised and increasingly met.

Orders of the Day — BACON CURING (STABILISATION SCHEME)

10.24 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
May I first apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend, who has suffered a sudden indisposition, and, secondly, for my own shortcomings in this matter, as the subject was handed to me three hours ago. I am certain that I shall not be able to satisfy the House on every point although, naturally, my task will be, as usual, to do my best.
This is one of very few subjects, to quote the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) in an Adjournment debate, which can arouse the House. No more delicate and difficult point, as the hon. Gentleman said, is involved in British farming.
This scheme provides for the continuation of assistance to the bacon curing industry and will apply to bacon produced by curers in the United Kingdom between 28th February and 31st May next.
The stabilisation arrangements were introduced in 1967. It was hoped that, under the arrangements, payments to curers and levies upon them would, over a period, be self-balancing, with the industry receiving Exchequer support when it was making losses but paying levies back to the Exchequer when it was working at a profit. Under successive arrangements arrived at, £43 million was spent up to 1970–71, including nearly £22 million in that year. In return, levies of only £57,000 were received. Since 1970–71 expenditure has been progressively reduced to an estimated £11·3 million for the present financial year, and during it a further £375,000 was collected in levies. There is little prospect of more of the total expenditure being offset by further levies. Something in excess of £77 million will have been spent on this aid over about 6½ years.
It is true that substantial changes have taken place in the bacon industry since the stabilisation arrangements were introduced. The quality of our bacon pigs and Wiltshire bacon has improved dramatically. For example, the proportion of top selection British Wiltshire bacon sides has improved from around 70 per cent. in the early years to over 92 per cent just now. Compared with 1967, home bacon production has risen by no less than 30 per cent. and bacon imports have fallen by over 15 per cent.
The stabiliser is, however, a national aid to production of a sort which the European Economic Community has sought to control by its rules on State aids. Such rules are essential if there is to be fair competition within a common market. Because of these rules, our fellow new members were required to get rid of all their national support in the pig meat sector immediately from 1st February. We, however, can phase out our deficiency payments system, but subject only to that our partners were understandably anxious to establish unsubsidised trading in pigmeat as soon as possible.
At the same time we were determined to ensure fair trading conditions during the transition. The result was agreement on what I think everyone would agree was an admittedly complicated package, under which, after 1st February, we were able to phase out the bacon stabiliser; and the compensatory amounts necessary to secure fair trading were phased in. From 1st June, the stabiliser must disappear and the compensatory amounts will be restricted to levels justified by differences in feed costs—apart, that is, from the separate monetary compensatory amounts justified to offset parity charges.
That is the background to the draft scheme before the House today. The present scheme applies to bacon produced up to and including tomorrow. The draft scheme, as I have said, takes over until 31st May. Apart from this, the draft scheme is identical to the 1970 scheme. Like the latter it only establishes the framework for the operation of the stabiliser
The basic formula used in administering the scheme provides for a comparison of curers' returns from the market less their raw material costs, with a target


margin which allows for curing costs and return on capital. Payments are made to curers when the difference between their returns and costs is less than the target margin. Levies are payable if the curers do better than the margin.
In considering this margin for the next three months, account has been taken of a recently received confidential report by independent accountants on curers' costs and profitability. This report is based on a sample of the nine largest factories. It indicates that the sample as a whole had enjoyed a return on capital comparable to the average for United Kingdom manufacturing industry as a whole over the period 1967–71. This return was inclusive of stabiliser. Without the stabiliser contribution the nine as a whole would have shown a loss.
The report suggested that £3·40 per cwt. might now replace the figure of £2·71 per cwt., which is the target margin at present, but this had not, in the present study, been examined in depth. We have decided that it would not be right when we are phasing out this scheme to increase the target margin for subsidy purposes. However we do accept that as a counterbalance levies should not be payable until curers are earning more than £3·40 per cwt. mentioned in the accountants' report. Thus we propose to operate a neutral zone centred on £3·40 within which neither subsidies nor levies will be payable. As a result curers will not be required to pay levies unless their margins exceed £4·10 per cwt.
In all other respects the existing stabilisation arrangements will be continued unchanged.
The Government recognise that if stabilisation payments are to be phased out curers must be allowed to obtain more from the market. There is no doubt that this Government achieved significantly lower retail bacon prices on average through the standstill on United Kingdom bacon than would otherwise have been the case. However, the industry and the bacon trade are, I know from personal experience, very concerned at the effect of the price premium that imported bacon is now receiving at firsthand. They have pointed out the marketing difficulties that this is causing.
Moreover the industry has argued that some relaxation of control on British bacon prices should bring forward more British bacon and help to check the recent trend in imported bacon prices. It is against this background and bearing in mind the desirability of phasing out the stabiliser as smoothly and progressively as possible that the Government, as already announced in another place, are prepared to accept as a first step limited price increases of up to £25 per ton in the first-hand price of home-produced Wiltshire bacon sides in the present week. Comparable increases in first-sale prices of other types of bacon can also be made.
Taken with the increased pig prices to be used in the stabiliser calculation made this week, a £25 per ton increase in firsthand prices would reduce stabiliser payments from a little over £66 per ton to about £58·5 per ton. The effect of this increase in home bacon prices at retail is likely to be small. With constant distribution cash margins on supplies of United Kingdom bacon, which represent some 43 per cent. of all bacon supplies, a £25 per ton increase in all grades at first-hand amounts to less than ½p per pound overall on retail bacon prices.
What is basically before the House is the draft scheme renewing the stabiliser. This I commend to the House. It is the basis on which we can continue for another three months our support to our curers and thus is the means whereby we can gradually adjust the industry to its new unsubsidised situation after 1st June. It is also the means by which we can avoid a large immediate increase in British bacon prices. For all these reasons I ask the House to give their approval to the draft.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: In spite of the lucid words of the Minister of State, he does not make the scheme more acceptable to this side of the House. Important matters often arise in the House in seemingly innocuous ways, and this is an example. We are debating an apparently technical scheme which could eventually change the whole pattern of the British breakfast. One wonders whether we are approaching a point at which the British breakfast of bacon and eggs is a thing of the past.
In spite of the hon. Gentleman's reassurance, I want to try to show that the scheme will lead to quite an increase in the price of bacon.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not present. When he answered a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) this afternoon, he implied that there could not be a subsidy without rationing. Yet we are discussing a scheme which has in the past produced a subsidy on bacon. Therefore, in the last few months especially, due to this subsidy from the Exchequer, bacon has been available at below the market rate. The right hon. Gentleman's implication is therefore false. We can also see the corollary of it in this case, in which the removal of a subsidy will create a type of rationing for some people—rationing by price.
Like most agricultural decisions, this one obviously affects the farmer, the industry and the consumer all in different ways. We are discussing a scheme which, as the hon. Gentleman said, relates to a very sensitive part of the agricultural scene. Many will claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) does, that this is probably the most sensitive part of the British scene.
The pig cycle has caused tremendous difficulties throughout the world. At the end of 1966, in an effort to stabilise this cycle, the previous Government brought in what turned out to be a temporary stabilisation scheme, which, following the Worth Committee Report and the report of the IRC, was adopted more or less permanently and was due to expire in two days' time.
We would all admit that there have been difficulties with this scheme in spite of the changes since 1970. But its abandonment raises certain difficulties, not only for the consumer but also for the farmer. We believe that, in spite of its imperfections, the scheme was basically a good one.
With its abandonment we are left wondering what effect it will have on the British bacon industry. Does the Minister envisage that we shall be able to maintain the present share of the domestic market? I wonder whether he feels that this scheme will have any

marked effect on the pig population of of this country. I wonder whether he can give us his thoughts on what the effect of the scheme will be in consideration of the tragic swine vesicular disease we are all hoping the Ministry will be successful in combating. Has he seen the most recent edition of "Agro-Europe", of 21st February, which shows there is no sign of a pig glut? These are questions we feel we are entitled to have answered, and to which the industry, too, is entitled to have answers.
Furthermore, did the Minister see the table in the Appropriation Accounts and the statement.
The Ministry consider that for the third and fourth quarters of 1972 Danish support may well be in excess of that in the United Kingdom and that the level of support has been substantially higher in both Ireland and the Netherlands."?
I mention this because we are entitled to ask what effect this scheme will have on our competitors abroad.
That is the industry's side and the farming side of the matter, but there is also the consumer angle, and the Minister rightly emphasised it. We are all concerned with it. We see inflation all around and we all recognise the dangers of inflation. The working people of this country are undergoing a wages freeze and a so-called prices freeze.
Following his visit to Europe the Minister explained how successful he had been in coming to good terms with the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 22nd and 23rd January. In a written reply on 24th January, he said:
I am satisfied that these arrangements adequately cover the interests of both consumers and producers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1973; Vol. 849, c. 182.]
I have looked through the scheme, through the statements and estimates, and I cannot see how the consumers benefit one little bit from this scheme. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can explain to us how the scheme benefits them.
It seems to me that the most obvious effect of the scheme is to put up the wholesale price of bacon as from tomorrow and probably as from next week the prices in the shops where, obviously, most housewives will feel the effect. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Minister in another place explained that the price of


British bacon is to be allowed to increase by about £25 per ton in the near future. He said that the Ministry expects the price of imported bacon to fall. That is hypothetical because if our competitors, the Danes, wish to keep their increased compensatory amounts there is no reason why they should not.
The Minister in another place talked of averaging out the prices, but there is no reason to suggest that a cut in prices will be passed on to the British housewives. On my figures, £25 per ton works out at a little over 1p per pound wholesale. It is British bacon I am talking about now. I emphasise that that is a wholesale price. I do not think that that is in itself is the true figure because I believe that many housewives next week will find their bacon even more expensive than that.
For example, it has been estimated that the best British back bacon will be costing 2p to 3p per pound more next week. I accept the point that there will be a lesser increase on the more inexpensive cuts. On this matter we are entitled to an answer from the Minister. Will the housewife next week be charged only an extra 1p per pound? If she is charged more will she be entitled to take that up with the Department of Trade and Industry? We want answers to these questions. It is simply not good enough to say, as the Minister in another place said, that bacon will probably go up only ½p per pound.
As the Minister said, there will be further increases in March, April and May. This is only the beginning. Yet it is sad at this time, when the Government are urging working people to exercise restraint in wage claims in an effort to beat inflation, that fresh food prices should be going up, causing anguish and frustration to the housewife which are passed on to the wage-earner.
Repeatedly, Ministers have argued that the increases in food prices are caused by factors which are beyond their control. We constantly hear the "Red" scare of the failed USSR harvest. With this scheme we have the chance to keep down the price of food prices—there could be no more psychological time—yet the Government will not do it. They may say that they cannot afford to, but according to my calculations they are

saving more than £50 million this year on the livestock guarantee. Why not use some of this money to keep down the price of bacon, if only for the period of the freeze?
The scheme is a deliberate move by the Government to put up the price of food. It is part of their declared policy to shift the burden from the Treasury to the housewife. The Prime Minister promised to cut prices at a stroke, but here he is deliberately increasing bacon prices. In the context of the freeze this will rightly be seen as unfair.
The Opposition are in a difficulty tonight. The scheme gives limited and diminishing help until May 1973. Any help is better that none in keeping down the cost of food. Part of a loaf is better than no bread. In spite of that, we find the scheme extremely unsatisfactory and completely unacceptable, but we shall not vote against it because at least it gives some help until May when the subsidy is abolished altogether.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) made a gallant effort to find a reason for not voting against the scheme, but the House knows that the Opposition are not voting against it because they have already been beaten by 60 votes on three occasions tonight and do not want to chance their arm again. I do not blame them, but I hope the electors of Dundee, Chester-le-Street and Lincoln will have taken note of the inadequate performance of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley commented on the Minister's remark that we could not have a subsidy without rationing. He claimed that we could, and said we had only to take the example of the bacon stabiliser. Bacon is in a somewhat different category from other commodities because alternative supplies have been available until now from Denmark and other countries from which we obtain that portion of our bacon requirements that is not produced on the home market. Ordinarily, food subsidy is impossible without rationing because alternative supplies are not available. The hon. Gentleman wrongly referred to the bacon stabiliser as a subsidy. It was never meant to be a subsidy. It was meant to


be a balancing, financially self-supporting device to smooth out fluctuations in the bacon curer's return.
Nevertheless, it has become a subsidy, and has cost the taxpayers between £70 million and £80 million. This sort of unplanned increase in public expenditure should not be allowed to continue, whatever other merits the scheme might be thought to have.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) laughs. I remind him that one of his colleagues is chairman of the sub-committee of the Public Expenditure Committee which, just before the weekend, protested about increases in public expenditure. I think that he also might have regard to this point.
Therefore, apart from any Common Market consideration, there are perfectly valid reasons for considerably amending the scheme and probably for getting rid of it altogether.
I have no doubt that it was well-intentioned when it was first launched, but it has become outdated, because of the factors that I have mentioned and because of the change in the world meat supply situation. In the changing world meat supply situation, the scheme would be a distorting agent and for that reason it should now be gradually phased out.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: As hon. Members will know, I have an interest in this matter having worked in the industry for 15 years and still being connected with it.
This is an unexceptional scheme so far as it goes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) made clear, but some doubts have been raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), about its total cost and whether this form of public expenditure was not, so to speak, running away with itself.
The Minister told us that over the six or so years of operation the scheme has cost £77 million. However, that is not the net cost of the scheme. In fact, there has been a considerable compensatory saving to both Labour and Conservative Governments over the past six years on pig guarantee payments. This was not noted by the Public Accounts Committee which looked into the matter a few

years ago. I do not want to go into the details. Indeed, I probably could not do so at this stage. The complications of the pig guarantee payments are well known to both Front Benches. I think that everyone would agree that there has been a considerable saving which probably could be quantified—it would not be £77 million—which would reduce the net cost of the scheme to no more than £30 million or £40 million which, over six years, is not a large amount.
The scheme could be, and I think has been, criticised for the fact that both the Labour and the Conservative Governments did not exercise the degree of control over its operation that they might have done. This is a general criticism of Government aid to private enterprise. I do not think that there was anything particularly peculiar about the way that the bacon stabilisation scheme operated in this respect. But the Government could have been criticised over the past year or so because that is when the price gap between the wholesale prices of Danish and English bacon has increased and reached astronomical proportions compared with what is traditional in the British bacon market.
The British housewife has not had the benefit of cheaper British bacon as a result of this wide differential between the first-hand prices of Danish and British bacon. The reason is that grocers, rather like butchers, tend to average their prices, and the fact that they were able to buy British bacon cheaper did not mean that it would be on sale on the shop counter at cheaper prices to the housewife. I guarantee that if someone went into a shop selling both Danish and English bacon he would find that, quality for quality, he would pay the same price for both, although on the wholesale market there is a price gap of about £80, Danish being £550, per ton, and English being £470. Therefore, the Government could be criticised on that score. The housewife, even during the operation of the scheme, did not get at retail level the full benefit of the subsidy being paid to bacon curers.
The hon. Member for Devizes has considerable knowledge of farming interests, particularly the producing interests, and I am sure that he has them very much at heart. I am sorry that he did not bring up the point that the main advantage of


the scheme is that, because of it, since December 1966 bacon curers have been able to offer long-term contracts for the supply of bacon pigs, which they would not have been able to do had the scheme not been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in the emergency of December 1966, and which was adapted and put on a permanent basis in March 1967.
We are told that the scheme is to be phased out in the next three months. We are told that it is illegal under Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome which prohibit State subsidies except in certain conditions. We were told none of this during the Common Market negotiations. When the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was constantly reporting back to the House and those who knew something about the industry—and they were on both sides of the House—were questioning him, he said that the bacon industry was a special problem, that the Government recognised the special nature and characteristics of it, and he eventually reported back to us before the negotiations were complete that this was something that would be looked after.
Bacon curers as such will not be adversely affected by the phasing out of the scheme, except to the extent that the rise in prices allowed under phase 2 of the prices and incomes policy does not compensate them for the loss of the stabiliser, but it is probably the Government's intention that one should more or less balance the other. However, there are two sections of the community who will suffer. One is the producer, and the other is the housewife.
The latest move will make it impossible—I say that advisedly—in three months' time for any section of the British curing industry to offer long-term fixed-price contracts to bacon pig producers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Devizes shares my high regard for these contracts and the stability which they have brought to one of the most important sections of the pig meat industry in this country.
Pig producers over the next year, and from now on in Common Market conditions, without any Government support will have to face greater instability of

return, especially as the Government have done another thing which I find incredible in view of the general knowledge about the pig cycle, and that is to get rid of the flexible guarantee arrangements. Housewives, too, will be adversely affected, because even if the forecast of a rise of 3p per pound in bacon prices comes about between now and June, that will not be the end of the matter.
The Danish price is now £550 per ton. The Danes have made it clear to the trade that they expect to get £600 a ton by the end of 1973, and that means putting several more pence per pound on the price of bacon in the shops. For the benefit of those who do not know the full story of bacon, let me tell them that the Danes are very much the price leaders since they dominate the market in terms of their share of total supplies. That is something else to which the housewife will have to look forward this year.
My hon. Friends have said that the Government could have used part of the saving on livestock subsidies during 1972–73—£50 million plus—to aid housewives—even if this amount had been used only to help housewives during the freeze. It is unfair that prices should be deliberately forced up by the Government when wages and incomes are frozen. The reason why the Government are unwilling to part with that £50 million and other savings this year on guarantees to farmers is that they are not interested in the housewife and that the money will go to offset the cost of concessions to surtax payers in this year's Budget.
Reverting to the Common Market point, the fact that the scheme will be for only three months represents the abandonment by the Government of their promise to the bacon pig industry, producers as well as curers, not only that their interests would be looked after but that the special problems of the industry would be kept under review during the transitional period. Special problems demand special treatment and special attention. The stabiliser may not be the right way of giving this to the bacon industry, but certainly something needs to be done.
Unfortunately, nothing is to replace bacon stabilisation payments when they are phased out at the end of May. There is nothing in the scheme or in what the


Minister said to give confidence to bacon pig producers, who have the heaviest investment in breeding stock, buildings and management techniques. They are by far the elite of British pig producers. Here we are letting them down. They deserve much better than this shoddy treatment. I hope that the Minister will have at least some kind words for them.

11.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on what is I think, the first occasion on which he has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. I think that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that in speaking not only with such confidence and ability but also with such knowledge of a highly technical and difficult subject, he has won the respect of all of us this evening. Certainly I hope that we can bring this standard of debate to these sometimes rather complicated schemes. I welcome him to join the late night squad on farming matters—those of us who over the years have taken part in these debates. I hope that we shall have many more occasions on which we can deal both so constructively and so sensibly with topics such as these.
A number of points have been raised about this stabilisation scheme. I join very strongly with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) in paying tribute to the assistance that the stabilisation scheme has been to the bacon industry. Of its value there can be very little doubt. Looking at it over the whole period for which it has operated, there is little doubt that if it had not operated in that way, the curing industry would be in a very much weaker state than it is, in consequence the production of bacon might have been lower, bacon prices might have been higher and our bacon import bill larger. The connection between all those things is no chance connection. I shall return to that connection shortly.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West also rightly said that but for the stabilisation scheme and the money spent in it, the deficiency payments bill would have been higher. It is entirely right to offset the one against the other. Therefore, I should be one of the first to pay

tribute to the benefits that this scheme has brought to the curing industry and the pig producer. Indeed, I took the precaution of looking back to a certain day in 1966, when I had an Adjournment debate. I am sorry that the then Minister of Agriculture is no longer with us. I claim at least a little credit, I hope, through that debate and other efforts, for bringing the then Government to make their announcement concerning the stabilisation scheme. Although the scheme did not develop until rather later, I thought then that the Government recognised the problems which faced the industry.
At the time the curers were in a serious financial position. Today they are in a much stronger position. Looking to the future, the important question is not just that the curing industry is doing well but that certain changes must be considered if the long-term health of the industry is to prevail.
Although we believe that the money has been well spent on the industry, I must mention the loans which took place right from the beginning of the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there is little prospect of recovering any more of the expenditure which occurred by means of loans and thus it will be necessary to write off the outstanding loans made in the early years. These, with interest, amount to £1·8 million. The fact that we are prepared to write this amount off is further proof of our confidence in the industry.
Next comes the relationship of the scheme—and the fact that we are introducing it for only a limited period—to the Community. Putting the Community on one side, it must be remembered that the rise in the Danish and world price of bacon has happened and would have happened regardless of entry into Europe. A rising world price would have tended to extinguish the stabilisation payments.

Mr. Deakins: This is one of the peculiar commodities—it may be the only one we import—where the world price is the British price. There is no market for bacon except Great Britain. It is a little misleading to say that the Danish price rise in the last six months, for example, has had nothing to do with the Common Market. One reason the Danes have had to increase their price on the British


bacon market is to compensate their producers for the higher price of feeding stuffs.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Usually I admire the hon. Gentleman's logic in economic matters. But that was not logical. The phenomenal rise in grain prices, which the Danes and the British have had to endure, had nothing to do with the Community.
They were the result of the world shortage of grain. The hon. Gentleman, by making that point, has, like his hon. Friends, sought to make the Community the whipping horse for everything. If Opposition Members have anything good to say about the Community, let us hear it. Let us not introduce extraneous arguments that do not relate to what is happening within Europe.
As it appears not to be recognised by hon. Members opposite, I repeat that the rise in prices has nothing to do with the European Economic Community as such. In a time of rising prices, the stabilisation payment would have become self-extinguishing as time went on.
There is another matter about which Opposition Members seem to be confused. When my right hon. Friend returned from the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels a few weeks ago, he said that we were required under the Common Market rules to phase out our stabiliser. Equally, however, what Opposition Members fail to recognise is that in response to the industry, we are phasing out our stabiliser and national aids to the pig industry over a period, while other EEC countries, notably Denmark, Eire and Holland, are immediately stopping their national aid to pig producers. The difference between us is that they are stopping their national aid immediately, from 1st February, whereas we gain by phasing out our national aid over a period. To this extent we improve the competitive position of our industry.
I take the argument a stage further. We may argue about what has been agreed and its effect on what is happening, but what matters is the competitive positions of this country's pig industry and that of our main competitors, particularly Denmark, with whose industry we are most in competition.
I make no comment on the unrest in Danish agriculture in recent weeks, but the plain fact is that Danish pig producers have enjoyed national aid to the extent of about £70 per ton of bacon produced, which, in effect, has been an export subsidy for Danish producers sending their bacon to this country. The compensatory amounts that we have agreed for March mean that the Danish bacon producers will be getting £60 rather than £70. To that extent the British producer will be in a more competitive position, and that will result from our entry into the EEC. Opposition Members have failed to recognise that effect of our entry into the EEC—

Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member has made a wholly producer argument. I do not dispute that, having gained some four months during which to continue our subsidisation via the bacon stabilisation scheme, producers are marginally better off than the producers in other EEC countries who have to phase out their national aids at once. But it is a wholly producers' argument.
What the House and the public want to know is how, in the middle of a price freeze, in the middle of a period of hyperinflation, the Minister can justify the abandonment of a subsidy arrangement when the result of that abandonment is that bacon prices are bound to go up, and for no reason except that the Minister has decided to phase out that arrangement, not because it is his best judgment, but because he has had to do it because of the superior law of the Common Market.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the argument to which I was about to come. He asks a fair question, but I think that he ought at least to listen to the argument on the points which his hon. Friends have raised. One of his hon. Friends said that promises had been made to pig producers that our aids would be phased out over a longer period, and I was dealing with that question, demonstrating that what we are doing is in no way putting our producers at a disadvantage but, rather, is putting them at an advantage in relation to their main overseas competitor. The question was put in the producer context, and I was answering it in that context. The hon. Member for Walthamstow,


West, wanted to know whether our home producer would be put in a disadvantageous position, and I have explained that, in fact, he has been put in a marginally better position in relation to his main overseas competitor. It is important to have that clear.
I come now to the effect on the consumer. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not try to duck the issue. He made absolutely clear what the effect of our proposal would be. I must say at the outset that I am a little concerned at the rather loose talk of prices going up 2p and 3p a pound. I should be interested to know where that comes from. My hon. Friend pointed out that the overall effect on bacon prices would be rather less than ½p a pound. I emphasise that that is the overall effect. If one were concerned only with British bacon, the effect might be greater, but, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, pointed out—I seem to be calling him in aid a good deal, but he has great knowledge of the industry—on the retail side during the period of freeze there has been an averaging effect between imported bacon and home-produced bacon. When an increase happens like this, there is that averaging effect, and in such circumstances my hon Friend gave a perfectly fair assessment of what is happening.

Mr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman asked where the figures came from. I have followed his argument and that of the Government that prices should, on average, go up less than½p. That is wholesale, I take it. I should like confirmation of that. In view of all the comment in the Press about a price increase, however, could the hon. Gentleman give an answer which we could pass on to the housewife, telling her how much extra per pound she should pay—or should not pay—next Monday?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One cannot give a definitive answer on that because there are so many different cuts of bacon and many different ways in which bacon is prepared. What I am saying is that, on average, the effect should be as I have stated it. That is a perfectly fair figure to give.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has not made a speech tonight.

Mr. Buchan: No, I have been very mild. The hon. Gentleman tells us that from next Monday the average price will go up by about½p. That means that some will be more and some will be less. What price rise will be less than ½p?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With his outlook on prices, the hon. Gentleman is just not prepared to envisage a nil increase. There are some things on which there could well be a nil increase. That is how one arrives at an average. The arithmetic is simple, and, with his knowledge of arithmetic, the hon. Gentleman should be able to grasp that.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have given way a great deal in the debate and I should like to deal with the real issue for the consumer. I have spoken about the effect on prices, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend earlier. What I find most worrying are two particular aspects raised by the Opposition in connection with the consumer. The first concerns subsidisation of the consumer.
The stabiliser was never introduced as a food subsidy. I wish that the Opposition would realise that the whole purpose of the scheme is to improve returns to the curers. It has nothing to do with a food subsidy. Whereas the stabiliser may have been appropriate for the particular circumstances of the freeze when prices were subject to the standstill, to use it as a longer term form of food subsidy, for which it was not designed, would be wrong. The scheme is designed to bring stability to the curing industry, in particular, and to the producing side of the industry.
The most worrying point about the Opposition arguments concerned the balancing of the interests of the consumer and the producer. Here the Opposition have made two basic mistakes. First, they have looked at the argument in far too short a term. They have considered the stabiliser. They have considered how in the particular and peculiar circumstances of the standstill it can be used to assist curers at a time when they are not allowed to increase their returns. But


they have ignored the longer-term effect this can have on the bacon industry.
Equally, far too often they think that a higher price for the producer is against the consumer's interest. I refute that at once. The interests of consumers and producers are not in conflict. Nowhere can that be more clearly shown than in the bacon and pig industry. One of the consequences of holding down the price of bacon has been a short-term beneficial effect. But another effect has been to distort the market for pig meat. It has diverted far more pigs to pork and it has reduced the number of pigs going for bacon. In the long term the only effect it can have is to reduce the number of British pigs going forward to the bacon curers, which makes the economic position of curers less secure, reduces the amount of British bacon coming on to the market, leaves more of the home market to the foreign producer—and, as we know only too well from the past, it is the foreign producer who holds the British housewife to ransom. She is at risk if the foreign producer gets too tight a hold on the home market.
If we follow through the logic of the Opposition argument, therefore, it is not the producer who benefits from the slightly higher price of bacon pigs, it is the consumer. The consumer is protected. It is a fallacy in the Opposition argument that they try to put the consumer and the producer in conflict. They should realise instead that by giving the producer a proper encouragement and by making sure that the bacon curer has a proper access to supplies of pigs, they ensure that the housewife stands to gain.
We should get into perspective the average ½p per pound increase of which Opposition Members have spoken. It represents an increase of only 0·045 of 1 per cent. in the food index.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS

11.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move
That the Representation of the People Regulations 1973 dated 9th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
I cannot pretend that the regulations are earth-shattering. They are probably not very controversial. They are merely interim regulations making changes in the 1969 regulations. Those regulations will have to be replaced before 1st April 1974 to take account of the changes in the arrangements for registration that have been made by the Local Government Act 1972. These amending regulations are therefore merely designed to meet immediate needs, particularly in relation to the county and district elections this year and the canvass for next autumn. The regulations make one change in regard to jury service and deal with two other relatively minor matters.
Regulation 3 provides for all Members of Parliament to be supplied with a copy of the register for their constituency free of charge on request. This new provision owes its origin to a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), for which I am grateful. Under the present regulations the registration officer has a duty to supply copies of the register for use by prospective candidates at a parliamentary election. In practice they are supplied to local party agents, and sometimes the Member receives one and sometimes he does not. It seems proper that he should be entitled to a free copy in his own right for his use in representing his constituency. Any of us will be able to write to the registration officer for our borough or county and ask for a free copy of the register for our constituency.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Any of us". Why does not the regulation apply to Scottish Members? Is there to be a separate regulation?

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps I may deal with that a little later. I apologise if I am mistaken in saying "Any of us". I


understood that the regulation applies to all Members.
Regulations 5 and 7 are technical amendments, required to permit the arrangements for postal voting to apply to elections for the new counties and districts established under the Local Government Act 1972.
Regulations 4 and 6 deal with jurors. They will enable the new basis of jury service to come into operation when next year's electoral register is published. They follow directly from the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the effect of which is that every man and woman will be qualified to serve as a juror if he or she is on the electoral register and is not less than 18 or more than 65 years of age. The intention is that every elector within those age limits may receive a jury summons, and that at that stage the Crown Court will have to be satisfied that he or she is in all respects qualified for jury service.
Under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the registration officer will be required to supply the Crown Court with copies of the register showing those who are under 18 and those who are over 65, who are not eligible for jury service.
For those under 18 that is no change. The date of their birthday is already marked on the published register under the existing arrangements. For those over 65 new arrangements have to be made. Section 26(1) provides for the Representation of the People Regulations to enable information to be obtained for that purpose. The effect of Regulation 4 is to provide for that and the new form prescribed under Regulation 6.
The alteration is that the new Form A now has an additional column for jury service. A tick has to be entered if the elector will be over 65 when the register comes into force. If this is done, the registration officer will then inform the Crown Court by marking the copy of the register which he sends them that the elector appears to be over 65. I should make it clear that those markings will appear only on the copies of the register sent to the Crown Court and will not appear on any other published register.
In considering the new arrangements, we have been anxious to spare elderly people the worry that a jury summons

might cause them if it arrived or from the trouble of having to complete a special jury service questionnaire. To meet that it has been necessary to ask them to indicate in Form A whether they are over 65. On the grounds of safety and privacy we did not think it right that that information should be shown on any published register.
I appreciate that there might be some households where there will be difficulty about completing the jury service column accurately without the householder trespassing on what may be felt to be the privacy of some elderly person living in that household. In that case the householder will have to use his discretion, knowing that if he does not enter a tick in the column the person who is aged over 65 will be liable to be put to the trouble and have the concern of receiving a jury summons. It is an offence to give false information in completing that form. Therefore, no one should be tempted to avoid jury service by wrongly alleging or stating that he is over the age for such service.
The new Form A will be printed to be in time for the canvass which starts next August or September. We shall be arranging suitable publicity at that time. That is the effect of the regulations. They are hardly of a major nature. They are merely interim measures to cover the arrangements for the first elections.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am sure that the Minister of State does himself less than justice by belittling the nature of the business which he has brought before the House. His self-deprecation does not sit well on him. There are several points worthy of debate and the Government might have arranged this business at a more convenient hour so that more hon. Members might have taken part.
We are dealing with regulations which have an important bearing on voting both in parliamentary and in local elections. On page 2 of the regulations we have Form A which is to be returned by the occupier. A very great opportunity has been missed to strengthen a point which was made at some length by both sides in the Committee on the Local Government Bill about the allocation of polling numbers to tell people that they are


entitled to vote. Here we have five paragraphs with information for the person compiling the form. Paragraph 2 says that a person whose name does not appear in the register cannot vote. Surely, with a little imagination, we could add one or two sentences to the effect that from the register official poll cards would be issued but that whilst it was helpful to know one's polling number it was not essential in order to vote.
In committee on the Local Government Bill the point was made strongly that a number of people are deterred from voting if they do not at the time of the election know their polling number. This is a good opportunity to include a little clarification without any additional administrative work. I am disappointed by this passage.
There is some ambiguity in Note 4, dealing with electors lists. It says:
These lists can be checked at council offices, etc., from 28th November. Claims in respect of names not included in the lists must be received by 16th December.
In 1972, 16th December fell on a Saturday, and it was brought to my attention that the electoral registration officer for Gloucestershire county refused to accept claims which were posted to him with a post-mark dated before 16th December but not delivered until the following Monday because his office was closed on the Saturday. It was a disgraceful decision. I made inquiries of the Town Clerk of Bristol and he told me that as 16th December fell on a Saturday he had opened his office until noon that day, and that if anything was found in the letterbox when the office re-opened on Monday, 18th December, it was deemed to be within order and to fall within the 16th December deadline.
When we get these discrepancies in interpretation between one registration officer and another, it means that we must have clarification. The hon. and learned Gentleman should think seriously about giving fairly strong guidance to registration officers about what to do in cases like that. I think it is important that registration officers should realise that they are public servants and that these things should not be interpreted capriciously.
Note 4 deals with postal voting and I think that a further opportunity has been

lost. It mentions "absence on business". This is so vague as to be almost misleading. Most people reading it will not realise the large number of categories of people entitled to vote by post because their work takes them away sporadically, perhaps for one or two days. It would be helpful to people in understanding their rights if some examples were given—for instance, lorry drivers, who can be away driving long distances. This provision could also be expanded without additional administrative trouble or burden. To many people "absence on business" conjures up a very narrow category of those entitled to vote by post. They do not realise just how many categories of people qualify.
The Minister mentioned Regulations 5 and 7 deal with the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers applying to elections of councillors for principal areas. Will he say whether this will cover the cases of those who move within a district? I have spoken at length in the House on a number of occasions about the way in which Bristol has been humiliated under local government reorganisation, being stripped of its once-proud city and county status and reduced to the status of a jazzed-up parish council.
It is still a large place, in spite of what the Government have done to it. If a person goes from, say, Southmead or Avonmouth on the north side over to Hartcliffe in my constituency on the southern slopes of Dundry Hill, he will have a great distance to travel if he wishes to return to vote. Does this facility include postal voting within a district of that size? If not, it is high time that the Government thought about this. If the Minister tells me that I am wrong about this I will be more than pleased. If I am right, I ask him to consider someone who has to travel across Bristol to make a return journey from work to vote. He will have to go through the rush hour traffic. Is this encouraging people to exercise their democratic right?

11.43 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) said. But I want to raise two other, different points. The hon. Member spoke of people being


absent on business. I cannot understand why people cannot have the vote when they are on holiday. People take holidays all the year round now. Such people are not in a special category. Over 7 million people are taking holidays at different times of the year and it seems absurd that they should be disenfranchised because they are on holiday. It does not happen in other Commonwealth countries. People from such countries on holiday in Great Britain can vote in their own country.
Paragraph 2 deals with, among other things, the registration of members of Her Majesty's Forces. It says that their names:
will be included in the register if they have made the necessary service declaration; to do this they should apply to their Service or Department or to the British Council.
On the last occasion only 40 per cent. of such persons got on the register. How can they get on it if they are in Hong Kong, British Honduras or Singapore? If their commanding officer is particularly interested he might remind them about it. Yet it is different for merchant seamen. I do not see why members of the Forces should be any different from them.
It is unfair that citizens of the Irish Republic and merchant seamen can vote yet members of the Forces are disenfranchised unless special action is taken by them. These men and women perform great service to our country in many areas, including Ulster. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take special note of this and see that this unfortunate situation is cleared up.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: These regulations do not cover a great deal and we can discuss them in a wider context only by reference to other matters. One is happy to know that, as a Member of Parliament, one now gets one free election register. I have not had one up to now.
On the point about jurors, I concede that there may be some difficulty about asking someone who lives in a house with the occupier whether he is over 65. Many people do not particularly wish to discuss whether they are pensioners, and one wants to respect their privacy.
This brings me to a wider point. I hope that the guidance to returning

officers will ensure that they make every attempt to see that, where a house is in multiple occupation, the return of electors notice goes to every household in the house and is not simply completed by the person in control of the house. Time and time again, when one goes canvassing before and during election campaigns, one hears the disappointed cries of people who have been left off the register.
Some of us suspect the reasons. First, the landlord does not want it known, perhaps, from whom he is receiving rent, on which he pays no income tax, until eventually the authorities catch up with him. Second, there is now fairly stringent legislation relating to multiple occupation. In many cases, the landlord does not want the local authority to know that his house is in multiple occupation and therefore tries to retain control of the information given about occupation.
Third, I know from local authority experience that some councils and, I believe, even building societies, occasionally check up to see whether the mortgagor is subletting the property, which can sometimes be ascertained by seeing whether different names for the same address appear on the election register. Those are the reasons why a person in control of a house may not wish to return full information.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Perhaps my hon. Friend would consider a fourth reason, of which I can give him more details at another time. It is not unknown, in my experience, for the person who receives the form to exclude people on the ground that they may not vote his way in an election.

Mr. Fraser: That would of course be an utterly objectionable reason for leaving a person's name off the election register. The returning officers, who are town clerks and will know their districts thoroughly, will know those areas which are in multiple occupation, even if multiple occupation legislation has not been applied to them.
I hope that, for reasons of privacy, as well as to ensure that we get the maximum number of names on the election register, every attempt will be made to see that separate returns are made for all families in a house which may appear to


be in single occupation but which the local authority officers know from experience is likely to be in multiple occupation.
I realised only recently that we are not debating poll cards tonight, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) said that many electors think that they cannot exercise their right to vote unless they have a poll card. Attention is not drawn to this fact in the schedule to the regulations. All I would ask is that urgent consideration be given to urging local authorities to issue poll cards in the forthcoming elections. They will, after all, be elections for novel councils, with new areas, new constituencies and new powers. People in county boroughs will for the first time be voting for district councils and county councils. If there were any time when it was important to send out poll cards, it is the forthcoming elections.
It has in effect been left to the discretion of the returning officers whether poll cards go out. Some returning officers will say—as they have done already in London, I believe—"We choose not to send out poll cards." The Greater London Council area is surely one in which the boundaries are well defined, where there are no immediate problems of reorganisation, and where there is no reason why poll cards should not be sent out. I hope that the most urgent consideration will be given to urging local authorities, if it is a possibility, to send out poll cards for these elections.
On my hon. Friend's final point, about dates, once again, I hope that note will be taken of his remarks. After all, it does not say "noon" on a certain date for late notification of people who have been left off the register. In other regulations relating to representation of the people the word "noon" does appear. It was by mistake left out of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1973. I hope that guidance will be given about this. The limit of notice should be up to midnight of the day in question.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: It is not for me to delay the House unnecessarily but I would like to put a query on paragraph 5 of the notes

to the amending regulations, and that is about jury service. It says:
Electors who are over 65 are ineligible on age grounds for jury service.
I understand that the professionals involved in the courts are not regarded as ineligible at 65. By "professionals" I mean the people paid for their duties—judges, solicitors, barristers, and so on. It seems rather odd to a layman like myself that one should be ineligible for jury service when he becomes 65, that one should at that age be regarded as not suitable to serve on a jury, when the experts, so to speak, can go on indefinitely.
People are inconvenienced to a large extent throughout their working lives by being called to serve on juries. When they retire, when they become 65, they might almost make a hobby of serving on juries. Who are we to decide what hobbies people should engage in? Some people might enjoy jury service. I see no reason to impose such a limit. I query why that age limit remains an obstacle. I do not know, but is it by default? I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the point.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: By leave of the House, I will deal with the last point first, if I may. I say at once that the "professionals" do not go on indefinitely any longer. They may be interminable, but that is another matter. They used to be able to go on indefinitely, but there is now a retiring age for High Court judges, circuit judges, and for magistrates.
The answer to the question by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) is that these regulations are merely to carry into effect the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 in which the maximum age is laid down. The age of 65 was taken because the Morris Committee recommended that for jury service the age should be between 21 and 65 and the House decided that it should be between 18 and 65, presumably because it was felt that people much over that age, and sitting on a jury, might not be so much in tune with those whom they would be trying and who might be younger. Whatever the reasons may have been it is not for me to give them in this debate. All I can say is that the regulations specify 65 because the Act


specifies 65, and the Act specifies 65 because the Morris Committee recommended that age and the House accepted it.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I was wondering whether the Minister, on the basis of that argument, was considering reducing the retiring age of magistrates from 70 to 65.

Mr. Carlisle: If I were to answer that I would be way outside the scope of the regulations. Perhaps that matter can be raised on another occasion.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was quite right, and I apologise for having said "any of us". I should have said "for hon. Members in England and Wales". It does not apply to Scotland because Scotland has separate Representation of the People Regulations. There would have to be separate amendments to enable a free copy of the register to be provided to Scottish Members of Parliament. I will certainly draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The regulations are concerned with four matters. None of the other three applies to Scotland, and probably that is why Scotland has not been considered.

Mr. David Steel: I suspect that is what has happened. It is hardly worth making separate regulations for Scotland on the one point that might be covered by my suggested redrafting. Unless the Secretary of State for Scotland comes forward with a tiny amendment, Scottish Members of Parliament will be unable to have copies of the register.

Mr. Carlisle: I will examine whether there is any way in which without further amendment hon. Members may receive a copy. Each constituency is entitled to four free copies of the register. Presumably there will have to be amendments to the regulations applying to Scotland after the implementation of the local Government (Scotland) Bill. I will look into this and if necessary write to the hon. Gentleman.
I sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said. It is true that the number of Service men on the register and entitled to vote has dropped fairly substantially since the change in

the regulations. As she will know, this is one of the matters on the agenda for the Speaker's Conference. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his letter to the Speaker invited the conference to give immediate consideration to it. Both sides of the House accept that it is wrong that a large proportion of our citizens should be disfranchised because they happen to be in the Services.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) about multiple occupation. I am advised that when the registration officer is aware of multiple occupation he normally sends each occupier a separate Form A. As the hon. Gentleman accepted, there are times when the registration officer cannot know that there is multiple occupation.
The hon. Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) spoke about poll cards. The Government have stated that they intend to prescribe poll cards for elections after next year. The Government cannot prescribe poll cards for the first elections for the new county and district councils because in certain areas it is not possible to have the poll cards available in time. At the request of all the political parties and local authorities we agreed that local authorities should have discretion to decide whether to have poll cards, provided that they are advised by the returning officer that he is physically able to provide them. We must leave it to the local authorities to make their own decision. The impression I have from the Home Office is that all the pressure is to have poll cards, and we shall certainly take account of what has been said tonight. We have left it to the local authorities to decide, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a strong statement either way.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this has been left to local authorities. Is it not true that it has been left to the person acting as the returning officer specifically and that one man, a paid servant of a local authority, is in a position completely to go against the expressed wish of the majority of the elected members? Is not that undesirable?

Mr. Carlisle: That is not quite fair. It is true to the extent that the council


cannot vote to have poll cards unless it is advised by the returning officer that he can physically provide them. He has to inform the council that he would be able to provide them. Having made that information available, it is then for the council to decide whether it wishes to have them. Therefore, it is not quite right to say that one man can decide. If the returning officer, always acting impartially and with the best of motives, advises the council that he is unable to provide poll cards for the election, there is nothing that the local authority can do about it. If he is able to provide them, it is for the local authority to decide whether it wishes to have them.
Concerning the comment about not needing a poll card to vote, I am advised that the fact that a poll card is not needed to vote should be on the poll card; but it does not follow that there is any need to put that information on Form A.

Mr. John Fraser: Surely it is more important when there are not to be any poll cards. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the position in Greater London. The GLC has to resolve whether to send out poll cards, but, as I understand the regulations, it cannot resolve to do so unless every returning officer for every London borough says that he is able to comply with its request to send them out. Therefore, if one returning officer in London decides that polling cards cannot be sent out, that denies poll cards to the whole of the GLC area.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is right on his interpretation of the regulations. I think that in London that must be so. I will look at the position and see whether it is likely to cause trouble. Outside London the returning officer must say whether he can comply, and it is for the county or district to decide on that basis whether to have polling cards. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about London. I will look at that point.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am sorry to trouble the Minister again, but this is an important point. In Avon County we have three different returning officers for Gloucestershire, Somerset and Bristol. We in Bristol are convinced that we could have poll cards, but there has been a

nice, cosy agreement between the three people concerned and Gloucestershire and Somerset say "No", so the enormous area of Bristol is being deprived of poll cards for the county elections.

Mr. Carlisle: I will come to that in a moment. I had a feeling that we had designated one returning officer for each new area.
I turn to the point about moving within a district and the postal vote. The regulations in no way change people's entitlement to postal votes. Whether there should be a greater entitlement to postal votes is a matter for the Act, not the regulations. The fact that a person moves within a local authority does not entitle him to a postal vote at local elections. A person may be entitled to a postal vote only at parliamentary elections.
I was asked about absence on business and why we did not give examples of what this meant. There is a limit on the amount of information which can he given on Form A without causing confusion.
All these points can be considered when the Electoral Advisory Conference next considers Form A, which it will do in advance of the main altered regulations rather than the interim regulations.

Dame Joan Vickers: What about the holiday maker? Will that aspect of the matter be dealt with?

Mr. Carlisle: That, again, is a matter of substantive law and is not for the regulations. We cannot, by regulation, allow for postal votes. They are not allowed by law. Entitlement to vote while on holiday is a matter for the Speaker's Conference, and I cannot say further than that now.
On the question of the date for claims, I can tell the House only that the law is clear. Claims are required to be received by 16th December.
The answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, South is that the returning officer would have to satisfy all the councils concerned that he could not issue poll cards. There were reasons why we could not prescribe poll cards for the 1973 elections for new councils, and as we could not prescribe them we feel that the matter is best left for local decision without further intervention by the Home Office.
I think that the debate has gone rather wider than the regulations, as every matter that has been raised has not been one dealt with by the regulations but, rather, one that is not. But I am not suggesting that hon. Members were not right to raise those things that have been left undone as well as those things that have been done. What the regulations do is to provide a free copy of the register for every Member of Parliament in England and Wales, to provide technical alterations for postal votes for elections this year, and, finally, to provide the necessary alterations to Form A for the new qualification for jury service based on the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Representation of the People Regulations 1973, dated 9th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a basic scheme of social security contributions and benefits replacing the National Insurance Acts, to assimilate to it the operation of the Industial Injuries Acts and the Old Cases Acts; and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) of Category C retirement pensions, or benefit corresponding to a widows' pension or a widowed mother's allowance at rates prescribed by regulations made under the said Act of the present Session; and
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of money so provided being an increase which results from provisions of the said Act enabling the rate of a Category C or Category D retirement pension age addition or an attendance allowance to be increased by order of the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Fortcscue.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider United Kingdom assistance for overseas development and to report thereon:
And the Committee was nominated of Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr.

Michael Grylls, Mrs. Judith Hart, Mr. Frank Judd and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's Order of Reference.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons papers and records to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Cornmittee—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Orders of the Day — MID-WALES (MEDICAL SERVICES)

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I welcome the opportunity of raising once again in the House a matter which is of acute concern to many scores of thousands of people who live in the area of Mid-Wales. The grievance concerns the absence of a resident consultant in the area in a range of medical specialties. The principle involved is that people who live in a rural locality are as morally and legally entitled to the same high standard of locally-based services as their urban brethren.
The area which is the subject of the debate is that part of Mid-Wales which is served by the 280-bed Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth. It receives its patients from a wide area which stretches from Caersws in the north to the River Teifi in the south, and from North Radnorshire to the Mawddach Estuary.
The indigenous population of the area is about 75,000, but many of the coastal communities have a summer population which is three, five or even seven times the number of their permanent inhabitants. These figures are not without relevance, since the number of people actually served by the main base hospital for the area—namely that at Glangwili, Carmarthen—is about 90,000. Thus, taking into account the localities served by the Glantawe group of hospitals, even as regards the indigenous population the number of


people served by Aberystwyth is only slightly less than that actually served by Glangwili. It is obvious, therefore, that where facilities cannot be provided at Aberystwyth, the distances which people from Mid-Wales have to travel to the peripheral general hospitals are immense.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that fewer than half of the rural communities are served by any form of public transport. Patients taken to a district hospital from Llanidloes, for example, would travel 70 miles to Glangwili, 46 miles to Shrewsbury and 56 miles to Wrexham. Patients from Machynlleth would travel 80 miles to Glangwili, 61 miles to Shrewsbury and 65 miles to Wrexham. Patients from Towyn in Merionethshire would travel 85 miles to Glangwili, 75 miles to Shrewsbury and 65 miles to Wrexham.
As the Minister of State will know, in terms of medical risk as well as of human misery and anxiety it would be difficult to exaggerate the element of very real hardship which flows from such a situation. This hardship centres around three basic specialties. In what I believe to be ascending order of priority, they are the establishment of a psychiatric unit, an ENT specialty and a full paediatric service.
In relation to psychiatric disorders, I am sure the House will agree that it is a disquieting thought that psychiatric patients have to be taken to the huge St. David's Hospital at Carmarthen when they could so well be accommodated in a ward designated for that purpose at Aberystwyth. Likewise, patients who undergo fairly straightforward ENT operations also have to suffer transportation to Carmarthen.
The specialty, however, in respect of which the lack of local provision has given rise to the deepest feelings of injustice and to a protracted campaign in the House and elsewhere is the service which deals with the care of sick children and infants, the paediatric service. This issue has been given even greater prominence following representations made in the House three weeks ago by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) following the death of a nine-year-old boy in his constituency. That child was admitted to Aberystwyth Hospital suffering from an acute peri-

tonitis condition. He was operated upon immediately. The operation seems in every way to have been properly conducted. The child did not recover and some weeks later he was transferred to Wrexham where, after three or four weeks, tragically he died.
It may well transpire from the inquiry now taking place that the matter did not involve a paediatric situation as such. Nevertheless, that sad happening has given a new impetus to an old campaign to establish a paediatric service at Aberystwyth. I have received numerous representations from local government bodies and from social and educational bodies and establishments, in addition to many scores of representations from people representative of all walks of society in my constituency, in support of the establishment of this most important service.
The general case appears to be wholly irrefutable. Within the last 18 months two authoritative reports have given strong support for this proposition. First there was that of Professor Gray, the regional adviser in paediatrics, in October 1971. After an examination of all the possibilities, Professor Gray came down firmly in favour of establishing a paediatric consultant at Aberystwyth. According to Professor Gray, such a person would
be able to provide both in-patient and outpatient cover for all sick children and infants and develop comprehensive child care services. This appointment would reduce travelling time and expense for parents and sick children; daily visiting would be more practical and there would be cover for the newborn and special care babies. Much needed domiciliary help would be available for the local practitioners.
That view was further buttressed by the Stacey Report on Children in Hospitals in Wales which appeared in July of last year and which made a specific recommendation that there should be a joint appointment between the hospital board and the local government areas concerned of a person who would operate both as a paediatric consultant and as a community child health physician.
The numbers of paediatric or child patients discharged from Aberystwyth each year is about 300. The structural amenities for such a service already exist and so could easily be added to, if necessary. In addition there is already in


existence a full range of supporting services.
Sometimes it has been contended—-unfairly in my view—that the actual number of patients in Mid-Wales in relation to each of the specialties I have mentioned does not justify a consultant. This is a spurious argument and it has been clearly demonstrated to be so on a number of occasions when specialties have been located at Aberystwyth. That has been true in relation to gynaecology, ophthalmology, pathology, orthopaedics and geriatric medicine. In each case the level of demand at the time the new consultant was established was comparatively low, but there was a spectacular increase within months of his appointment and that increase has remained steady ever since. If there are any doubts on this matter I should be prepared to give the fullest particulars to the Minister of State.
The demands are there, the needs are there, but their full extent will never be appreciated until a consultant in each of the specialties I have mentioned is established in the area. There must be no placing of the community of Mid-Wales in the invidious position of having to choose between one specialty and another, and there is no question of their having to elect to extend the range of specialties and suffer a general fall in standards.
I appeal to the Minister, who lives in Mid-Wales, to use every authority he has, every power of persuasion which he possesses, to have these three vital specialties established at Aberystwyth, because without them the hospital service in Mid-Wales will be incomplete and substandard.
I very much hope that the Minister will not seek to shelter behind general norms which great moguls of medical administration have laid down but which have no relevance to the wholly exceptional situation of Mid-Wales. Much could be said tonight about what the Bonham Carter Report says in its advice that consultants should operate in teams and that general district hospitals should be established for populations of 200,000 and upwards.
Nevertheless the Minister must know that the Bonham Carter Report of 1969 itself spelt out certain situations which had to be regarded as exceptional. I quote from paragraph 27:

Nevertheless, we accept that in the more sparsely populated areas of the country there will have to be some compromise between specialist staffing and accessibility: we have examined the pattern of district general hospitals at present planned for several such areas and we accept that in some places it will remain necessary to provide a district general hospital to serve less than 150,000 people, and in a very few places even less than 100,000.
If there is any area in England and Wales that is to be regarded as an exception, surely there can be no area, with its small towns, its scattered villages and its thinly populated hinterland, that has greater merit in this respect than Mid-Wales. I ask the Minister to speak tonight as a Mid-Welshman and to say that it would be monstrous to apply an artificial general formula of this nature to this area.
The situation at Aberystwyth has been described by many as being deprived and incomplete, and both these terms are clearly true. That should not in any way be regarded as suggesting that there is a lowering of standards in Aberystwyth among the present range of specialities for which the hospital caters. Splendid and noble work is done at Aberystwyth, often by consultants who operate singly. Indeed, Professor Peter Gray himself has paid tribute to the single-handed consultants operating in Mid-Wales.
Of late anxieties, to my mind needless anxieties, have been created about Aberystwyth. The impression given in a programme that appeared on Harlech Television about a fortnight ago was that there had been a blizzard of complaints descending on Bronglais Hospital. That is not so. I have checked with the group secretary and I find that the facts are that in 1970 there were 13 complaints; in 1971, there were eight; and in 1972, so far as can be established, there were 10. In other words, it has been a level of complaints far below the average for a hospital of that size.
Some wonderful research, which is accepted by the highest medical authorities, is done at Aberystwyth. Time does not permit me to consider the future following local government reorganisation, but I hope that I shall have the opportunity to raise that matter.
One theme that is common to everything I have sought to compress into this short debate is that administrative systems have no purpose or justification except


to serve the individual and the community. In an area such as Mid-Wales, which lacks many general amenities, the danger which looms large for the hospital service is that people will be made subservient to bureaucratic systems. It is the duty and privilege of Parliament to reverse that.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: In a short debate of this kind it is difficult to convey the tremendous anxiety felt by the people of Mid-Wales about the services available to them in the district general hospital at Aberystwyth. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was right to pay tribute to the specialists there and to those who continue to give that service, but it is grossly unfair to those specialists that they should have to work in a vacuum knowing, for example, that when an acutely ill child is admitted, no specialist paediatrician is there to give advice. That is grossly unfair to the population of Mid-Wales.
The Minister of State and I have been corresponding about this matter for a long time and in his letters to me he has repeated the advice that he has received no doubt from the regional hospital board and his medical advisers. The sadness of the situation is that no kind of inquiry was instituted into two tragedies that occurred; I know that on 5th February the Minister undertook to institute an inquiry into two cases that I called to his attention.
I live in Mid-Wales and I should not allow a child of mine to be taken to Aberystwyth if she were acutely ill. I have a high regard for the specialists there, but no parent with a choice would send his child there when there is no specialist paediatrician service available. It is disgraceful that the hospital board and the Welsh Office have hidden behind the general advice of the Bonham Carter Report when clearly an exception can and should be made in the case of Mid-Wales.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Cardigan have kindly allowed me some of their time and I do not wish to take too long, but it is important for the Minister to realise that the people of Mid-Wales are seething with anxiety about this matter. For the most part,

if they had a choice they would not allow their children to go to Aberystwyth. How can that be fair to the population of Mid-Wales? How can it be fair to the general practitioners in the area? How can it be fair to the staff at the hospital at Aberystwyth?
There is a great problem of morale relating to the whole of the Mid-Wales area, from the staff at the hospital to the people of the area which it serves. It is up to the Minister to twist the arm of the Welsh Hospital Board and see that something is done immediately.

12.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I welcome the opportunity to talk about this subject tonight in response to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I wish to take up at once one point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was inclined to say that the first suggestion of an inquiry came only when those cases occurred the other day. I assure him that in April 1971 I gave the Welsh Hospital Board general guidance on hospital facilities for children and asked it to undertake a review of the organisation in Wales. The board has completed its task, and copies of its report have been widely distributed for comment. I expect to receive the board's recommendations later this year.
The provision of hospital services in Wales is primarily the responsibility of the Welsh Hospital Board. There is no time tonight to dwell on the state of affairs which the board inherited 25 years ago, when it took over a mixture of old buildings and wartime temporary constructions. But I think it wholly proper to put on record the Government's appreciation of the board's dedicated hard work over the past two decades and to acknowledge the steady improvement in the hospital services in Wales that has resulted.
In planning hospital services for Mid-Wales, one must take into account the whole area, and its needs must be viewed in the context of resources available for Wales as a whole. The total population of the area which will form the new Powys health authority is 99.000. The population in the adjoining Dyfed area


health authority, outside the Llanelli district, is about 220,000. So we start-1 think this was recognised by both hon. Members—with the basic problem of a large area with a small scattered population.
In such areas it is a hard fact of life that we in Mid-Wales have always had to go further for many facilities and amenities—not only hospital treatment—than others living in urban environments. It is my responsibility to ensure that the people of Mid-Wales get the best possible medical treatment, and reconciling this responsibility with the convenience of the individual is far from easy. But if the patient is to get the best possible treatment for many acute conditions, I am advised that he is best cared for in a large unit having full facilities and 24-hour consultant cover in the specialties which it carries. Once this is accepted, the problems of Mid-Wales come into sharp focus.
It is national policy that the keystone of the hospital service is the district general hospital providing comprehensive services for populations of about 250,000 people. There are demonstrable clinical advantages in having all the major specialties under one roof and, given the limitations of resources, both human and financial, and the increasing complexity of technical services, some concentration of facilities is inevitable. It was on that basis that the hospital at Glangwili, Carmarthen, was planned and developed.
The needs of Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire justified further hospital provision at Aberystwyth and Haverfordwest, at which most of the major specialties could be provided. At Aberystwyth the main work was completed in 1966, and I hope that work will start before long on the new 324-bed hospital at Haverfordwest.
The problems of Central Wales are very similar. Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery have a total population of only 99,000.
The second stage of the Nevill Hall Hospital at Abergavenny is nearing completion and when it is commissioned next year it is envisaged that that hospital, too, will cater for the major specialties and thus make suitable provision for those living in a part of Central Wales. The major hospitals will be the backbone of

the service. The Welsh Hospital Board is nevertheless very conscious of the part played by the smaller local hospitals, and these have not been neglected.
For example, a 30-bed unit for geriatric patients was recently completed at Llandrindod Wells. Work should soon begin at Glangwili on a 32-bed unit for the mentally handicapped similar to one under construction at Pembroke Dock, and these will be followed by a similar unit in the Aberystwyth area and another in South Montgomeryshire. At Carmarthen there will be a unit for the younger chronic sick. Facilities for geriatric patients are planned at Tregaron, Knighton and Welshpool. Many of these schemes will be financed from the special additional funds made available by the Government for improvement of provision for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the aged.

Mr. Morgan: Before the Minister leaves that point will he tell us whether he accepts the wholly exceptional character of Mid-Wales as defined in paragraph 27 of the Bonham Carter Report?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was not referring in my speech to paragraph 27 of the Bonham Carter Report. But I agree, and I have been saying in my speech, that Mid-Wales is a very exceptional place. The hon. Member asked me earlier today a question to which I had to give him an off-the-cuff answer. He wanted an assurance that the percentage of total capital expenditure on the hospital services received by the Mid-Wales Hospital Management Committee is no less now than it was three years ago. The latest figures I have are for 1971–72. In that year the percentage of capital expenditure received by the Mid-Wales Hospital Management Committee was 2·5 per cent. of the total. The figures for the three preceding years were 1·2 per cent. in 1968–69, 0·8 per cent. in 1969–70 and 2·0 per cent. in 1970–71. So the story is a good one.
A key problem is medical manpower. I ask the House to understand that, because it is the key to the whole question. The hon. Member laughs. What he has to laugh about I cannot imagine. If he would kindly explain why he is laughing at the shortage of medical manpower I shall gladly give way.

Mr. Morgan: How can the Minister say that there is a lack of medical manpower when an administrative decision has been taken over the years not to give any opportunity for these appointments to be made? Only then would the matter be put to the test.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am distressed that the hon. Member should take that attitude. The shortage of doctors in the hospital service is fully recognised and we are doing something about it. We have announced plans to increase the number of students for suitable places in medical schools: the target figure and annual intake of 4,100 by the late 1970s compares with the present intake of about 3,000. It must be admitted that this is a long-term measure since it takes many years to train a doctor particularly for hospital specialist work. But we are beginning to benefit from the expansion of medical training programmes.
In particular the growing success of the vocational training schemes for hospital consultants needs a special word. We can see in the immediate future an expansion of some 4 to 5 per cent. per annum in the number of consultants.
I regard the expansion of the consultant grade as a matter of very high priority although I realise that there are many other priority demands on our financial resources. A Welsh Manpower Committee has recently been set up under the aegis of a Central Manpower Committee covering England and Wales whose duties are to advise the health departments on planning targets for staffing. This Welsh Committee is already functioning and giving valuable advice to the Welsh Hospital Board about medical staffing in the hospital services in Wales.
I know that the hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member are particularly concerned about paediatric and ENT services. The Welsh Hospital Board's policy is to concentrate the in-patient services for Dyfed at Carmarthen and at the same time improve the out-patient services at Bronglais and Haverfordwest.
In 1970 the Chief Medical Officer of the Welsh Office carried out a review of health services in Pembrokeshire—and to some extent the adjacent counties—and recommended the appointment of a second paediatric consultant additional to

the one in post at that time. He further recommended that this paediatrician should be based at Carmarthen.
This recommendation was later supported by Professor Gray, the hospital board's own consultant adviser in paediatrics. The appointment of this second paediatric consultant was made recently. I know there was disappointment that the appointment was made to Carmarthen rather than to Aberystwyth or Haverfordwest. This disappointment was shared not only by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman but by some of my Conservative supporters in the area. But professional opinion opposes single-handed appointments in this specialty. It was therefore considered that basing the second consultant at Carmarthen would make the best use of available resources while providing the most satisfactory service for Dyfed as a whole.
Professor Gray also recommended that there should eventually be four paediatric consultants in the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth-Haverfordwest area, with the third consultant based at Aberystwyth. But at present there is only one consultant paediatrician per 130,000 population in Wales. It is important to see this figure in the context of the catchment population of Bronglais Hospital, which is very much less.
In the first instance it is vital to establish one really first-class paediatric department at Carmarthen with adequate consultant cover and nursing expertise in the care of children.
The same applies to the ENT services. The hospital board's strategy in concentrating the in-patient facilities at Carmarthen has full professional backing. Through its doing it in that way the children will get the best available service.
In addition Carmarthen would become a centre for the assessment of handicapped children, having readily available not only paediatric advice but also that of an ENT department in the assessment of deafness, which is so important in dealing with handicapped children.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to two recent cases calling into question the treatment and services at Bronglais Hospital. I have called for a


full report from the Welsh Hospital Board, which I shall study very carefully. Tonight I can only express my deepest sympathy to the parents of the young boy who died.
I have spoken in the House and elsewhere on this subject a number of times recently. I am aware of the concern. I know that no hon. Member would accuse me of not being aware of it or of not having studied the question carefully.
I repeat my assurance that we will continue to do the best we can with the resources available. There has been over the years a steady progress in the improvement of the hospital services provided for those who live in the rural areas of Mid-Wales. This progress will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.